ITAT Indore Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the 3rd Proviso to Section 50C(1), introduced by the Finance Act, 2018, applies retrospectively from 01.04.2003. The difference between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation (Rs. 50,000, approx 1.19%) was within the safe harbour limit of 5%.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unsecured loans was not justified as the loans were from previous years and not utilized for deposits in the current year, citing jurisdictional High Court precedent. Regarding the addition for unexplained cash deposits, both parties agreed to a remand for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal memo was seriously defective and non-maintainable as it was not signed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal could not be adjudicated on its merits.

The Tribunal held that Rs. 46,000/- was explained as a mere re-deposit from a prior cash withdrawal to reduce overdraft interest. For the remaining Rs. 2,08,000/-, the Tribunal found the explanation plausible given the cash-intensive nature of the stamp vending business and the substantial turnover. The Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence, and the amount was considered reasonable within the business context.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Both the AO and the CIT(A) found that the assessee did not provide adequate evidence regarding the construction of a residential house, such as approvals, plans, or proof of payment, and that the asset sold (land) was not a residential house, which is a prerequisite for the deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had booked a property with Sahara and sold the booking right to Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, with Shri Mukesh Joshi acting as a broker. The assessee's initial representation that Shri Mukesh Joshi was the buyer was due to a misunderstanding. New evidence, including a confirmatory certificate from Sahara, supported this corrected version.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) needed to be set aside as both the assessee's AR and the Revenue's DR agreed that the cases of other co-owners, which are pending, should be heard together with the present case to maintain consistency. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the notice under section 148 was dispatched/sent to the assessee on 01.04.2021, it should be considered as issued on that date. As the notice was issued after the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, the mandatory procedure under section 148A was required to be followed. Failure to do so renders the assessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal observed that neither the assessment order nor the CIT(A)'s order were passed on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal held that the mandatory procedure under section 148A was not followed, which vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Additionally, the seized material cited by the AO was found to be illegible and did not directly implicate the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, as per Section 249(3) of the Act. The assessee's claim that notices were not received due to an address change was not accepted as a valid reason for the significant delay.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not comply with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the order to be in writing, stating the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's submission that non-prosecution was due to a bona fide reason and that the assessee was willing to make an effective representation.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the first appeal by CIT(A) was against the mandate of natural justice and section 250(6) as it was an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to verify the assessee's claim of filing an online response and to decide the issue of delay with a fresh perspective, considering substantial justice over technicalities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a small trader exempted from maintaining books of account and opting for presumptive taxation, had provided supporting documents for the debtor recoveries. While the AO's addition was not fully sustainable, to bring the litigation to an end, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's proposal to tax 8% of the disputed amount as business income.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed with an inordinate delay of over two to three years without any sufficient cause or condonation application. The assessee failed to provide justifiable reasons or evidence for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeals in limine.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the inspection and verification reports were not furnished to the assessee. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the non-disclosure of adversarial material.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had focused on interest income from banks, overlooking the assessee's claim for deduction related to its core business activities of providing credit and agricultural supplies. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to have its claim examined on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,48,14,793/- as the assessee had provided purchase and sales registers, and the books of account were not rejected. However, regarding the capital introduction, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to follow due process of law and natural justice by not giving the AO an opportunity to examine the explanation and evidence provided by the assessee for the gift received, thus upholding the addition of Rs. 14,40,000/-.

The Tribunal held that provision for standard assets made by a banking company as per RBI guidelines is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). The Tribunal followed the decision of the co-ordinate bench and the Karnataka High Court, taking a view in favour of the assessee on this issue. However, the Tribunal noted the necessity to verify if the claim was within the permissible limit prescribed in Section 36(1)(viia) and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of the limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and being unfamiliar with tax procedures. Similar issues in connected cases were being remanded, warranting consistency. The Tribunal restored the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 per case.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and did not meet the requirements of Section 250(6). Considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's limited understanding due to being from a smaller place, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked the jurisdiction to direct the initiation of fresh reassessment proceedings against a legal heir, especially when the initial reassessment proceedings were found to be invalid. The direction to initiate proceedings against Shri Nishant Dattatray Sonar was also considered baseless as he was not a party to the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) should have conducted proper inquiries and verification regarding loan transactions based on affidavits, examining identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of donors. The CIT(A) also failed to do this. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions for squared-up loans and non-squared-up loans. Regarding squared-up loans, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, giving the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. For non-squared-up loans, the Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus and the AO's adverse inferences were not based on cogent material.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was due to a bona fide misunderstanding regarding the validity of the AO's order. The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under section 11/12 solely on account of a procedural lapse in filing the audit report (Form 10B) without audited accounts was unjustified, as the law considers this requirement directory.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made based on the statements of sellers which were not provided to the assessee, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination granted, violating principles of natural justice. However, the assessee's non-compliance during assessment proceedings was also noted.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the assessee was not provided with the AO's report which was relied upon for passing the order.

The Tribunal held that the Assessment Order and the CIT(A)'s Order were not based on merits, especially since additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) was not considered. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's non-compliance at the assessment stage.