ITAT Indore Judgments — January 2026

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that both the initial consolidated assessment order and the CIT(A)'s impugned order were not decided on merits and violated principles of natural justice due to the non-provision of incriminating material to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment on merits, with specific directions for the assessee to fully cooperate and provide all necessary documents.

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 determined that the assessment orders were passed under section 144 and were not decided on merits, nor was the CIT(A)'s order. It set aside the Impugned Order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh de novo assessment on merits. The Tribunal directed both the assessee to fully cooperate and the department to ensure disclosure of all adversarial material, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice.

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 determined that the 'Impugned Order' was passed u/s 144 without a full adjudication on merits and violated natural justice principles by not fully disclosing adversarial material. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and the department to disclose all relevant documents. All six appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

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 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed under Section 144 without adjudication on merits and the CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without addressing merits. The Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh de novo assessment on merits, directing the AO to provide all adversarial material to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed under Section 144 without adjudication on merits. The Tribunal set aside the "Impugned Order" and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment de novo, to be passed on merits according to law. The Tribunal directed both the assessee and the department to cooperate, disclose all adversarial material, and ensure a speaking and reasoned order in adherence to natural justice principles.

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 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 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 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the orders of the lower authorities were not passed on merits and lacked proper adjudication due to the assessee's failure to furnish supporting documentary evidence and registration details for the trust. The Tribunal set aside the 'Impugned Order' and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, de novo assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary information.

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 found that both the original assessment orders (under Section 144) and the CIT(A)'s order were not adjudicated on merits. Concluding that the orders violated principles of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh, de novo assessment on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully and provide all necessary information and documents to the AO.

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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, specifically directing the AO to re-examine the applicability of the first and third provisos to Section 50C(1) and to consider all submissions and documents from the assessee.

The ITAT found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted other transactions from the same lender, and the assessee had regularly paid interest and made repayment of Rs. 12,00,000/- through banking channels. Applying High Court judgments, the ITAT concluded that no addition was warranted and deleted the impugned addition.

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 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 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 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 observed that the assessee failed to fully substantiate the sources of cash deposits during the assessment, but also noted that the lower authorities had incompletely examined crucial evidence. Given the ad-hoc estimation of cash in hand by the CIT(A) without proper correlation with verifiable records, the Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 23,07,500/- addition to the AO for a de-novo adjudication. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue afresh, affording the assessee due opportunity to furnish all relevant evidence and considering judicial decisions.

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 found that the seized documents were not from the assessee's possession, lacked his complete identification, and the mere mention of "Mukeshji" was insufficient corroboration. It highlighted violations of natural justice due to the lack of cross-examination of Shri Dilip Kumar Jain and the absence of an independent inquiry into the assessee's financial capacity or the true nature of the alleged hundi transactions. Consequently, the additions made under section 69 were deemed not supported by legally sustainable evidence and were deleted.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 held that the excess stock was an integral part of the assessee's regular business and arose from suppressed business income over the years, not being separately identifiable. Therefore, the income should be taxed as 'business income' under Section 28, and the deeming provisions of Section 69B, along with the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE, are not applicable. The orders of the lower authorities on this issue were set aside.

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.