ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the sustainability of a penalty depends on the outcome of the quantum proceedings. Since the quantum appeal was pending and the assessee had provided explanations regarding the source of deposits, the penalty issue could not be adjudicated finally at this stage.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was made without confronting the assessee with the material relied upon and without providing an effective opportunity to explain. The credit for TDS was also not given. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions regarding the share of profit from the partnership firm. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper consideration of the adjournment request. The Tribunal also noted that the cash deposit might be from the sale of agricultural land and requires factual verification.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of locus standi. The Tribunal found that the verification of legal heir status was necessary at the Assessing Officer's level.

The Tribunal noted that the time limit for passing a consequential order had lapsed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous with liberty granted to the assessee to revive it if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for 30% depreciation on transit mixers depends on whether they are used in a business of running them on hire. The issue was restored to the AO for verification of this fact.

The Tribunal found that the AO had failed to verify whether the repairs and maintenance provided an enduring benefit or were merely for the upkeep of existing machinery. The assessee successfully demonstrated that the expenditure was for the upkeep of machinery and buildings.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to verify the genuineness of the cash sales by making necessary inquiries from the purchasers and decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the payee had disclosed the income and paid taxes thereon, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted. The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions which treated the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) as curative and retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the nature and movement of funds. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the NFAC provided less than a reasonable period for compliance, thus denying the assessee a real and effective opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside due to this lack of reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause shown by the assessee. It set aside the impugned order and restored the grounds of appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below did not appreciate the facts correctly. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, including an Adhikar Patra, indicating possession was handed over in 2005. The AO failed to conduct proper inquiry to rebut this evidence.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified as it did not demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT also changed his stand on the grounds for revision.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's claim and provide an adequate opportunity for explanation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause shown by the assessee. It set aside the impugned order and restored the grounds of appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC did not grant a fair opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing appeals, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic period. The dismissal on hyper-technical grounds was deemed inappropriate.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in invoking Section 115BBE as the surrendered income, arising from excess stock, should be treated as business income. Therefore, normal tax rates should apply.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC did not grant a fair opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing appeals, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic period. The dismissal on hyper-technical grounds was deemed inappropriate.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the audit report in Form 10B was obtained and filed by the auditor within the prescribed time. The delay in acceptance/approval of the report was considered a procedural lapse, not a substantive failure that would disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption.

The Tribunal held that the one-day delay in remitting EPF/ESI contributions, caused by technical issues with the EPFO portal and payment gateway beyond the assessee's control, should not be fatal to the claim for deduction. The delay was treated as being within the prescribed due date for the purpose of Section 36(1)(va).

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the NFAC provided less than a reasonable period for compliance, thus denying the assessee a real and effective opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside due to violation of principles of natural justice.

The tribunal held that the first appellate authority does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The appeal should be decided on merits even in case of non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the NFAC for non-payment of advance tax was not inherently wrong, but the NFAC failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to demonstrate if their case fell under any proviso. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that factual issues not raised before lower authorities cannot be adjudicated in second appeal. The assessee failed to provide convincing material to deviate from the additions made under Section 69A.