ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — February 2026

The tribunal held that the assessment order framed in the name of a deceased person, despite the AO being aware of the death and the legal heir filing a return, is void ab initio. The CIT(A)'s order upholding this assessment was also deemed a nullity.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay in payment of the cost, and directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh speaking order on the merits of the assessee's original appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. It noted that the assessment order was based on incorrect facts related to the demonetization period, which falls under a different assessment year. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a de novo assessment order based on correct facts and after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT, with the agreement of both parties, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs. 5,00,000/- and delete the remaining Rs. 3,50,000/- that was confirmed by the CIT(A).

The ITAT noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, similar to the decision for AY 2017-18.

The tribunal, based on a consensus between both parties, directed the AO to treat the Rs. 10,67,500 as business turnover and determine the assessee's income by applying a net profit rate of 15% on this amount. This effectively reduced the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234C is not applicable where the shortfall in advance tax payment is due to capital gains that arose after the last installment date and were not estimable. The Tribunal relied on the proviso to Section 234C(1) and previous judgments, including a sister concern's case with identical facts.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained registration under Section 12AA, which, as per the first proviso to Section 12A(2), applies to pending assessment proceedings for preceding years. Since the assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were pending when registration was granted, the benefit of Section 11 and 12 should have been allowed. The tribunal also noted that Form 10 for accumulation of income was submitted in time.

The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the assessment to the AO. It directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were from cash sales of Coca-Cola products in his retail business, after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The tribunal found that the rectification order was passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order, with directions to provide proper opportunity and consider the Supreme Court's judgment.

The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in it. No material was presented by the assessee to justify any interference with or modification of the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was due to the assessee not being afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a de novo order on the specific issue of additions, after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and for factual verification.

The tribunal held that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed without full consideration of the assessee's submissions and evidence. It was not possible to conclusively determine if a building existed at the time of sale from the record. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment on the disputed addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-. This was due to the assessment and appellate orders being passed ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders, finding that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal remanded both applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish necessary details.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case and submit necessary evidence. Therefore, it set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded both applications for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) did not adequately consider the evidence submitted by the assessee and failed to provide a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the rejection order and remanded the case back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present facts and evidence.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting that both lower orders were ex-parte, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The tribunal restored the issues to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a de novo order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as both parties agreed on the need for further verification.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The tribunal directed the AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring reasonable opportunity is provided to the assessee.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that a recent CBDT Circular addressed the assessee's grievance by providing a fresh opportunity to file a new application for 80G registration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal restored the issue of TDS credit back to the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to grant the correct TDS credit based on relevant materials like Form 26AS. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal without effective opportunity was noted.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The tribunal directed the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a fresh order on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 154 cannot be invoked for rectification on debatable issues. Since the original assessment order did not invoke Sections 68-69D, the application of Section 115BBE was a debatable issue, not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the rectification order was invalid.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. All grounds of appeal were disposed of accordingly.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal but dismissed the appeal on merits. It held that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the tax audit report, as the medical certificate was self-serving and the explanation for the long delay was insufficient under Section 273B.

The ITAT set aside the order of the first appellate authority and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a fresh order on the merits of the case after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT restored the issues back to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to consider the assessee's submissions and audited books of account after providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as the original assessment was made without proper verification.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) did not adequately discuss the assessee's reasons for condonation of delay or provide sufficient opportunity of being heard. The case was remanded for a de novo order, with directions to consider the condonation of delay and, if granted, to decide the appeal on merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024. The ITAT clarified that the assessee could seek restoration of the appeal if the dispute was not settled under VSVS.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024. The tribunal clarified that the assessee could seek restoration of the appeal if the dispute was not settled under VSVS.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the assessee did not wish to press it and the Departmental Representative had no objection.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was due to the assessee not receiving a reasonable opportunity during both the assessment and first appellate proceedings.