ITAT Jaipur Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(E) and directed the assessee to submit the required documents/information to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, restoring the matter to the CIT(E)'s file.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of not receiving the order. It held that the assessee had discharged the onus of explaining the cash deposits by providing details and affidavits, which the lower authorities failed to rebut with contrary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire addition made under Section 69A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the source of the funds by providing evidence, and the AO had not conducted adequate inquiries. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure and obtaining necessary approvals. The addition made was therefore outside the scope of the limited scrutiny and deserved to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent, the principles of natural justice require an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter is restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) and failed to present their case adequately. While upholding the need for merits-based decision and natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to provide one more opportunity for hearing, subject to the assessee's cooperation and no frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal noted that the additional documents submitted by the assessee were not verified by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification of the documents and allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal quashed the order of the ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80JJAA. It held that a claim not made in the original return can be made through a revised return filed under Section 139(5), as such a return replaces the original. Procedural aspects, such as delayed filing of forms or audit reports, if available before assessment, should not lead to the denial of legitimate deductions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions made by the AO. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had properly appreciated the facts and evidence, including bank statements and certificates, which explained the sources of the funds for the investments and transactions. The grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with multiple notices issued by the CIT(A). Despite this non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A) for effective adjudication. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal reasoned that there was sufficient material and evidence to support the additions made and the assessee failed to provide convincing evidence to rebut the department's case.

The Tribunal held that since the incriminating material was recovered during a search on a third-party group and not directly from the assessee, the appropriate provision for re-opening the assessment was Section 153C, not Section 148. It noted the department's failure to provide copies of the incriminating material to the assessee. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the reopening under Section 148 was invalid in this scenario and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the appellant's mistaken belief regarding the necessity of RPT Act registration. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on the Section 12AB application, requiring the appellant to provide all necessary details and documentation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, given the circumstances of non-service of notices.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without providing the assessee with an opportunity to explain the delay with sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have allowed for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Learned PCIT was the competent authority to grant approval under Section 151 of the Act, rejecting the contention that the approval was not granted by the specified authority. The contention regarding violation of the Apex Court's directives in Ashish Agarwal's case was also found to be without merit.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,67,500/- was not sustainable as the diary entries lacked dates, making it impossible to ascertain if they pertained to the relevant financial year. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 9,600/- for interest on cash loans was not sustained due to a lack of material suggesting any cash loan was advanced.

The tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The reasons provided, such as family problems and illness of relatives, were found to be insufficient and not adequately explained.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice and a liberal approach. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte in the lower proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not supported his grounds of appeal with documentary evidence. However, considering the assessee's claim to explain cash deposits and their non-participation, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 11 was denied due to non-registration under Section 12AA. However, subsequent to the CIT(A)'s order, the assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA, which was made applicable retrospectively. This removed the sole ground for disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The provided affidavit was unattested, and the documents related to civil/criminal proceedings were incomplete, rendering them of no assistance.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were not valid when the AO had seized material relating to the assessee during a search conducted on another entity. The Tribunal found that Section 153A/153C, with their non-obstante clause, override general provisions like Section 147/148 in cases of search or requisition, and thus the AO should have proceeded under those sections.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the merit in the assessee's submissions regarding the extraordinary circumstances. However, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the grounds of delay without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to present evidence for condonation. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 147/148 were initiated based on material seized during a search, which should have led to proceedings under Section 153C, not Section 148. The CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to improper service of notice under Section 148. The Tribunal also found that the addition based on AIR data was unsustainable as the deposits were made fraudulently by a third party. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee's consistent non-compliance before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that although the assessee was non-compliant, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing one more opportunity to the appellant.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was unsustainable in law as there was no deficiency pointed out in the assessee's books of accounts. The sales were from the available stock, and applying Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE on cash deposits made during demonetization, without proper justification or investigation into the books, was considered a double addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider the directions previously issued by a coordinate bench for assessment year 2010-11, which were relevant to the identical issue in assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the department was barred by limitation. Additionally, it was not maintainable because the department had already issued a notice u/s 153C of the Act to the assessee on 20.01.2025.

The Tribunal held that since the document was not found at the assessee's premises and the identity of the AOP was not established, the addition under section 68 was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding entitlement to TDS credit on rental income, provided the deduction and deposit were proven. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance related to the ownership and agricultural use of the land. The appeal was allowed in part.

The Tribunal held that penalty for concealment cannot be imposed solely based on a survey disclosure if the same has been subsequently declared in the income tax return. The crucial aspect is whether the concealment is reflected in the return filed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The seized paper was considered a rough memorandum of tentative repayment or interest dates, not evidence of fresh cash advances. The assessee demonstrated that the amounts were advanced through banking channels and recorded in books, with interest accounted for. Similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee in prior cases.

The CIT(A) quashed the assessment proceedings based on a High Court judgment. The Tribunal noted that similar appeals had been decided in favor of the assessee following the High Court's decision and a Supreme Court precedent, rendering the Revenue's appeal infructuous.