ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. Accepting the assessee's reason as genuine, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no incriminating document was found by the AO and the addition was based on suspicion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made to a completed assessment under section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions under section 153A in respect of completed assessments without incriminating material found during the search, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.2,71,000/- was not sustainable as the assessee had furnished supporting evidences and explanations which were not controverted by the Revenue. However, for the balance addition of Rs.2,00,000/-, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory evidence, and thus, the addition was justified and sustained.

The tribunal noted that the appeal was rejected ex-parte without considering the merits of the case. The assessee contended that they did not receive notices for personal hearing. In the interest of natural justice, the tribunal decided to restore the matter.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach of dismissing the appeal on limitation was hyper-technical and denied adjudication on merits. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, the Tribunal stated that 'sufficient cause' must be construed liberally to avoid defeating substantial justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay, deeming the medical hardship explanation, though limited, not to be brushed aside given the large additions involved.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach to condoning the delay was hyper-technical and denied the assessee adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court's precedent on construing 'sufficient cause' liberally was cited. The Tribunal deemed it just and proper to condone the delay and restore the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 284 days, as the CIT(A) found the reason provided (medical condition) to be unsubstantiated and lacking sufficient cause under section 249(3). The Tribunal, considering the large additions and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, condoned the delay.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS shall be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable. It noted that the CIT(A) granted credit based on Form 26AS without conclusive verification of the year of income offer or the reason for the mismatch.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided evidence of remittance through banking channels and disclosed it in the return, the identity and receipt confirmation from the foreign entity were not independently verified. Both the assessee and the AO share responsibility for this lack of verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding sufficient cause. It was held that the CIT(E)'s insistence on innocuous details without appreciating the constitutional spirit behind the assessee's charitable activities was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

The Tribunal noted that the mode of receipt by cheque is not sufficient to prove the source. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's finding due to insufficient explanation of the investment source. The AO made the addition on a protective basis, pending the outcome of proceedings before the Settlement Commission.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not provide all information in the exact prescribed format, they did furnish some documents and requested consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to be given. Since the assessee stated that the required documents are now available, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that a blanket rejection of registration without granting a final opportunity to cure deficiencies cannot be sustained. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity. The assessee expressed readiness to provide all required documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Considering this development and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication regarding both the registration under Section 12AB and the approval under Section 80G(5).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the specific objections raised by the AO regarding violations of the MSCS Act, bye-laws, and Banking Regulation Act. The CIT(A)'s order was considered cryptic and non-speaking, relying solely on earlier orders without addressing the AO's specific points.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no incriminating document was presented by the AO and the addition was based on general suspicion. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, noting that no incriminating material was found during the search, and relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments regarding completed assessments under section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the appellate process is meant to correct injustice and not penalize non-technical taxpayers, especially in faceless proceedings. The CIT(A) failed to examine the condonation reasons substantively and approached the case hyper-technically.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard, particularly considering the peculiar facts and the pending proceedings involving Shri Vikram Anjana. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination after granting adequate opportunity, taking into account the outcome of the proceedings concerning Shri Vikram Anjana.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was made on a protective basis, linked to proceedings involving Shri Vikram Anjana before the Settlement Commission. Considering the facts and natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination after granting adequate opportunity and considering the outcome of the proceedings related to Shri Vikram Anjana.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was made on a protective basis, and it was affirmed by the CIT(A) stating that the dismissal of the assessee's appeal was subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Settlement Commission. Considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was made on a protective basis and that the CIT(A) confirmed it subject to the outcome of the settlement proceedings. Considering the peculiar facts and the need for natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the appellant one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination after affording adequate opportunity and considering the outcome of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition on a protective basis, and the CIT(A)'s decision was subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Settlement Commission. Considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the appellant one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the time limits prescribed for filing applications under Section 80G of the Act are mandatory and there is no provision for condoning delay. The assessee failed to justify the delay and did not file the application within the prescribed time frame.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that illness prevented compliance with notices and appellate proceedings. Observing that principles of natural justice require an adequate opportunity, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach was pedantic and hyper-technical in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal found the explanation of illness, supported by an affidavit, to be bona fide, despite being imperfect, and not indicating any deliberate negligence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the specific objections raised by the AO. The CIT(A)'s order was deemed cryptic and non-speaking, requiring a fresh adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh, issue-wise adjudication.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no incriminating material was found during the search and the AO had acted on suspicion. The Tribunal concurred, noting that section 153A additions require incriminating material, and previous judgments support this.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to provide proper explanations before the lower authorities. However, considering cash withdrawals from other accounts and potential loan repayments, it was deemed fair to sustain an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits.

The Tribunal noted that the 'Kaccha Arhatia' acts only as an agent. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts correctly. The matter was restored to the AO for a limited purpose, directing the AO to examine Form 26AS and give credit for TDS mismatch if the corresponding income was offered by the assessee, the 'Kaccha Arhatia', or its principal.

The Tribunal held that the cause of action for the appeal arises from the intimation under section 143(1) and not from the assessment order under section 143(3) which merely adopted the figures from the intimation. The appeal should have been filed against the 143(1) intimation.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that if non-SBN deposits of the same nature were accepted as trade receipts, there was no justification to treat SBN deposits as unexplained, especially with supporting evidence. However, considering the circumstances and to balance equities, a part of the addition was sustained.