ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that 'Kachha Arhatia' acts as an agent of the farmer, not a principal, and their turnover should only include their commission, as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986. The AO/CPC has not allowed the full credit of TDS due to a mismatch in total receipts in ITR and Form-26AS.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC for delay condonation, without appreciating the genuine reasons, and without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard, violated the principles of natural justice. The assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ignored the assessee's contention of no admitted tax liability. Since the assessee claimed no taxable income and hence no advance tax liability, the dismissal of the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular 452/1986, a 'Kachha Arhatiya' acts only as an agent for the farmer and is not involved in the profits or losses of the sale. Their turnover should only include the commission earned, not the gross sale value of the crops. The AO/CPC wrongly disallowed TDS credit based on a mismatch.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal for a Covid-period delay and that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard. Relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement on natural justice in Tin Box Company vs. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide due opportunity to the assessee.

The Ld. DR had no objection to the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the facts supported the dismissal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard and present their case. The ex-parte order was a violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter should be remanded.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC had rejected the appeal by declining to condone the delay without appreciating the genuine reasons for the delay and without granting an opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal, in view of the principles of natural justice, decided to restore the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was perverse to the facts and against the principles of law. The evidence provided, including bank statements and an affidavit, sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit. The Tribunal found no reason to reject the explained source.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986, a 'Kaccha Arhatiya' acts only as an agent for the farmer and not as a principal. Therefore, only the gross commission should be considered for turnover computation. The Tribunal found that the AO/CPC had not allowed the full credit of TDS due to the mismatch.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence. The CIT(A) arbitrarily confirmed the assessment order without appreciating the facts and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by not ensuring proper service of notice under Section 250 of the Act. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring proper opportunity is given to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper notice and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case. Citing principles of natural justice and Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee a proper hearing. A duplicate appeal (ITA No. 697) was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and that this registration was a precondition for the 12AB registration. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since been granted registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Considering the principles of natural justice and the arguable case presented by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.