ITAT Indore Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal observed that the impugned assessment order was not adjudicated on merits. It was also found that the "impugned order" by the CIT(A) was not on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the assessee cooperating with the department and not going into "slumber mode" when notices are issued.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not adjudicated on merits and was passed in an arbitrary manner without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that all necessary statements, papers, and documents are now available to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated assessment order and the impugned order were not adjudicated on merits and were passed without proper procedure, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment on merits.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessment order nor the CIT(A)'s order was passed on merits and lacked proper reasoning. The Tribunal set aside both orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, expecting the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte and not adjudicated on merits. The Tribunal set aside the "impugned order" and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh adjudication on merits, subject to payment of cost by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not decided on merits and that there were breaches of natural justice due to non-provision of materials. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's lack of cooperation in the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that both the lower authorities' orders (Assessing Officer and CIT(A)) were ex-parte and not adjudicated on merits. The assessee failed to provide explanations or cooperate. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis.

The Tribunal found that the "Impugned order" was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to significant delays in hearing dates and the assessee's inability to attend the first hearing due to COVID-19. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal observed that neither the assessment order nor the impugned order by the CIT(A) was passed on merits. The Tribunal noted non-cooperation from the assessee but also a lack of full disclosure of adversarial material by the department, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal determined that the assessment orders were not decided on their merits and that principles of natural justice were not adhered to. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not based on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the need for compliance with due process and natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte. Considering the assessee's advanced age, serious illness, illiteracy, lack of knowledge of tax laws, and the negligence of his previous counsel, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the impugned order of the CIT(A) were not decided on merits. It noted a lack of cooperation from both sides and emphasized the need for a fresh adjudication on merits following due process. The Tribunal directed the AO to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's AR demonstrated that commission/contract receipts were already recorded in the books of account, contradicting the basis for two of the AO's additions. For the third addition, the assessee sought time to compile documents. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the case back to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the consolidated assessment order and the impugned order were not adjudicated on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for passing a fresh order on merits.

The Tribunal found that the "Impugned Order" by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and lacked the assessee's participation. Given the assessee's status as a government department and its desire to present its case effectively after retrieving old records, the Tribunal set aside the order.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessment order nor the CIT(A)'s order was adjudicated on merits. It emphasized the need for a proper disposal of the case following due process and adherence to principles of natural justice, including the disclosure of all adversarial material.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated assessment order and the impugned order were not adjudicated on merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not go into "slumber mode" and expected cooperation from both parties. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh order on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessment and the impugned order were not based on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the impugned appellate order were not passed on merits. It emphasized the need for a proper assessment on merits by the Assessing Officer, following due process of law. The Tribunal also stressed the importance of the assessee cooperating with the department and providing necessary details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication on the capital gains issue, specifically regarding the applicability of the first and third provisos to Section 50C(1).

The Tribunal found that the issue of addition could not be conclusively adjudicated by the lower authorities as certain material was either partly examined or inconclusively dealt with. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de-novo adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as a sufficient cause based on a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order and the subsequent order by CIT(A) were passed ex-parte and not on merits. It was noted that there might have been a breach of natural justice due to issues with the service of notices. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted procedural deficiencies, including the AO's incorrect treatment of the assessee as a bank and disregard for statutory provisions. The CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-prosecution without a proper order was also found problematic. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, while noting that the assessee had filed a reply which was acknowledged by the CIT(E), found that the CIT(E) had considered it incomplete. However, considering the assessee's willingness to make further submissions and for the sake of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the case back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the initial filing of the appeal was within the statutory time limit. The dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay was incorrect. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposit. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to prove the source of the income. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had responded to the second notice, although the CIT(E) deemed the response incomplete. Considering the assessee's willingness to make further submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the case back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity.

The Tribunal, after considering various judicial precedents, concluded that the companies associated with Shri Sharad Darak (from whom the loan was allegedly received) were neither paper nor shell companies. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had taken multiple loans from the same individual, and while one was treated as unexplained, others were accepted. The Tribunal also noted the regular payment of interest, deduction of TDS, and subsequent repayment of a larger amount through banking channels, which indicated the genuineness of the loan. Relying on Gujarat High Court decisions, the Tribunal decided to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) under section 68 of the Act was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the companies providing the loans were not shell companies and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised specific factual and legal contentions before the CIT(Appeals) but the appeal was disposed of ex parte due to non-prosecution. Recognizing that the issues involved substantial additions requiring adjudication on merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under section 69 were not supported by legally sustainable evidence. The seized documents did not belong to the assessee, lacked essential details, and there was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not confronted with a key statement. The characteristics of a hundi transaction were not met.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause due to medical reasons. The Tribunal also held that the order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte due to non-representation by the assessee, also attributed to bad health.

The Tribunal noted a consistent pattern of non-compliance by the assessee throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to provide substantive submissions or evidence, attributing non-compliance to technical issues with the e-filing portal. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting one final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents did not contain the assessee's complete name, address, PAN, or signature, nor were they found in his possession. Furthermore, the assessee was not confronted with the statement of Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence for a tripartite arrangement in the alleged hundi transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of jurisdiction was raised before the CIT(A) but not explicitly adjudicated. Recognizing jurisdiction as a threshold issue, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of the jurisdictional question.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,26,037/- under Section 69A was a matter that required evidence and explanation, which is beyond the scope of rectification under Section 154. The assessee's consistent failure to file appeals within the limitation period and the lack of a mistake apparent from the record rendered the rectification applications and the present appeal unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 218 days in filing the appeal, stating that the delay was due to compelling personal reasons and not intentional. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted a consistent pattern of non-compliance by the assessee in both assessment and appellate proceedings. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to provide explanations or evidence. The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was not bona fide and showed deliberate avoidance, it was restoring the matter for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was completed ex parte due to non-compliance and that the addition was made without a comprehensive examination of the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo consideration, directing the AO to examine the validity of reassessment proceedings, ownership of bank accounts, and nature/source of credits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the consistent non-compliance by the assessee throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings, including failure to provide submissions and evidence. Despite this, considering the assessee's claim of not getting an effective opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter for de novo consideration by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 period and communication issues that prevented the assessee from having an effective hearing. It was held that principles of natural justice mandate a fair opportunity, especially given the substantial additions.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock identified during the survey was an integral part of the assessee's regular business operations and constituted suppressed business income. Consequently, it could not be treated as an unexplained investment under section 69B, and the higher tax rate under section 115BBE was deemed inapplicable.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment and appellate proceedings were completed during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the assessee was denied an effective opportunity to present its case. Relying on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were completed during the Covid-19 period, and the assessee was denied an effective opportunity to be heard. Citing principles of natural justice and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal, considering the Covid-19 pandemic context, the assessee's claim of not receiving an effective opportunity of hearing, and the substantial quantum of additions, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the principles of natural justice and the difficulties faced by the assessee during the Covid-19 period, noting that a fair opportunity to present their case on merits might have been denied. Considering the substantial quantum of additions and previous rulings in similar circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.