ITAT Jaipur Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed passed beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 275(1) of the Act. Therefore, the ITAT found no illegality in the orders of the CIT(A) which had set aside the penalty orders.

The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were quashed by the Rajasthan High Court in a similar case, as the AO should have proceeded under Section 153C when seized material related to a third party. Consequently, the assessment order became ineffective.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had erroneously considered issues related to Section 12AB registration when the application was for Section 80G. The Tribunal also noted that principles of natural justice were not followed and the issue was not properly adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness of the supplier and the transactions. Despite opportunities, crucial documents like E-way bills and transit passes were not provided. The supplier's failure to respond to notices further weakened the case. The Tribunal found the addition under Section 69C to be factually and legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on toll equipment was revenue in nature. The miscellaneous toll expenses were petty and miscellaneous, and their disallowance was not justified. The unsecured loans were genuine and repaid, and therefore, the additions were deleted. Similarly, the additions for sundry creditors were also deleted as they represented trade liabilities. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was invalid and bad in law because the proper sanction/approval from the specified authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not obtained. The reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim regarding the purchase of land and the non-attraction of Section 56(2) warranted further examination. The Tribunal also noted issues with the communication of the remand report to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. This was because the Revenue subsequently issued notices under Section 153C of the Act after the CIT(A)'s order, thereby accepting the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal's case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was based on a High Court ruling where notices under Section 148 and subsequent assessment orders were quashed because proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C when search material related to a third party was involved.

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue issued notices under Section 153C after the CIT(A) order, and these appeals were filed subsequent to those notices, the present appeals are not maintainable. The decision of the High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal was applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. This was because after the CIT(A)'s order, the department itself issued notices under Section 153C of the Act for the same assessment years, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue issued notices under Section 153C after the CIT(A)'s order and after the High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, these appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were null and void due to jurisdictional errors, specifically the lack of proper application of mind by the competent authority while approving the reassessment notice under Section 151. The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 and the consequent assessment order.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in unrecorded sales is taxable, not the entire sale consideration. The addition was restricted to 1% of the turnover, amounting to Rs. 11,79,529, based on a trend in the bullion business, and the remaining addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was invalid as it was done without invoking any specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on various judicial pronouncements stating that additions cannot be made without referencing the relevant sections of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to file an application for condonation of delay and did not provide any sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as it was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the application for condonation of delay was not maintainable as it was not signed by the authorized person (Secretary) of the society. Consequently, with the dismissal of the condonation application, the appeal itself was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that no direct nexus was established between the seized documents and the alleged unexplained expenditures or investments, and that the documents were already recorded in the assessee's books of account. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that proceedings under Section 153C are unsustainable without incriminating material found during the search, and additions under Section 69C and 69A cannot be made when transactions are already accounted for. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deemed legally untenable and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the penalties were quashed on the legal ground of limitation, making the adjudication on merits academic.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty orders could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order on the issue of cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the assessment order could not be termed erroneous as per Section 263 read with Explanation 2. The PCIT did not conduct independent inquiry and merely differed with the Assessing Officer's view based on the same material.

The Tribunal held that Section 153C proceedings are vitiated in law if no incriminating material is found during search proceedings. The additions made were based on a presumption rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal found no direct nexus between the seized documents and the alleged unexplained expenditure. Therefore, the additions were deemed legally untenable.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on a presumption rather than concrete material linking the seized documents to the assessee's alleged undisclosed income. The invocation of Section 153C was found to be legally untenable due to the absence of incriminating material. The penalty proceedings were also challenged as invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to establish the source and nature of the cash deposits, and no material was submitted in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to provide another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 153C by the Jaipur authorities was without jurisdiction as there was no valid order under Section 127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction from Delhi. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C for non-residents. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. They noted that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after considering additional evidence rather than setting aside the assessment. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unwarranted as the assessee had maintained regular books of accounts, which were not rejected, and the cash sales were duly recorded and supported by sale bills. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide any material to establish that the sales bills were bogus and that the sales were part of the income already offered for tax.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds (non-payment of advance tax) without addressing the merits of the additions. Considering the assessee's initial declaration of loss, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to evaluate the advance tax liability and the substantial additions on their merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing both parties a proper opportunity of hearing.