ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — February 2026

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) merely reproduced the assessment order and the assessee's submissions without proper adjudication. It was observed that the CIT(A) failed to address the specific evidence provided for each cash creditor, such as IT returns, bank statements, and explanations for cash deposits. Therefore, the tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be arbitrary and lacking proper consideration of facts and evidence.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of non-disclosure by the assessee. For AY 2014-15 to 2017-18, the proceedings were held valid, but the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's audited accounts, wage registers, and customer invoices.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2014-15 to 2017-18, the proceedings were held valid, but the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's audited accounts, wage registers, and customer invoices.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. It ruled that cash sales recorded in books cannot be taxed under Section 69A, especially when the assessee provided a valid reason for depositing cash in Mumbai. It also held that the rejection of books under Section 145(3) was unwarranted as the assessee's valuation of damaged stock at lower of cost or NRV, following AS-2 and the principle of prudence, was justified.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by admitting new evidence and granting relief without forwarding the evidence to the AO for a remand report. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that once an assessment order merges with an appellate order or is finalized under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the PCIT cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was deemed bad in law, illegal, and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked the power to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) of the IT Act, as this power is vested solely with the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the enhancement of income based on the GP addition by the CIT(A) was deemed infirm and perverse, and thus deleted.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits belonged to the AOP, M/s Om Prakash Saurabh Tak & Party, and were accounted for in the AOP's books, which had been assessed by the AO. Since the department failed to disprove this, the addition made under Section 68 in the assessee's hands was deleted.

The tribunal reduced the sustained trading addition by applying a 2% net profit rate on the total turnover, resulting in an additional net profit of Rs. 8,32,481/- to be taxed. It also held that Section 115BBE would not apply as the addition was estimated without specific concealment or evasion.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adequately considering the assessee's prior submissions to the AO and without issuing a show cause notice. It held that the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to be heard and that the assessment order might be invalid due to the lack of a draft assessment order. The case was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The tribunal deleted the disallowance of rebate expenses, finding them genuine and interlinked with rebate income. For the unsecured loans and interest expenses, the tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on doubts and assumptions, and the assessee had discharged their primary burden by providing evidence of identity, capacity of lenders, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also noted that a similar loan to a family member was accepted as genuine. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For the remaining assessment years (2014-15 to 2017-18), the proceedings were held valid, and the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's detailed records and audited accounts.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2014-15 to 2017-18, the proceedings were held valid, and the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's audited accounts, wage registers, and customer invoices.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For the remaining assessment years (2014-15 to 2017-18), the proceedings were held valid, and the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's detailed records and audited accounts.

The tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without jurisdiction, as there was no failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2014-15 to 2017-18, the proceedings were held valid, but the tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient details and that minor deficiencies or procedural non-compliance did not negate the genuineness of the expenses.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the inquiries made with the creditors, violating Section 142(3) and CBDT SOP. It noted that transactions were through banking channels and three creditors had explained their sources. Citing a Rajasthan High Court judgment, the Tribunal ruled that depositing cash before transferring a loan is not sufficient grounds for an addition under Section 68. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found the JCIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal on technical grounds and confirming the entire receipts as income. It held that the assessee's claim for allowing corresponding expenditure against receipts was justified. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as an AOP and allow legitimate expenses after due verification.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 115BBE, effective from December 15, 2016, cannot be applied retrospectively to income surrendered during a survey conducted on August 23, 2016. Since the surrendered income was explained as business income, the pre-amendment tax rate of 30% is applicable, and the application of Section 115BBE and Sections 68-69D was unjustified.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the assessee had received the requisite relief from the PCIT's order under Section 263 and the subsequent assessment order. The appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the fresh notice under Section 148 was invalid because the prior approval was taken from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/PDGIT or CCIT, violating Section 151(ii) of the Act. Additionally, the notice was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the three-year period.

The tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of gross profit. However, it restricted the gross profit addition by excluding the sales to M/s Milap Enterprises from the turnover for GP calculation, acknowledging that a separate addition was made for these bogus sales. The tribunal confirmed the addition for bogus sales and the commission paid on them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had the option to choose a valuation method under Rule 11UA and had substantiated its valuation using the market/stamp duty value of land. The AO could not impose his own valuation method without disproving the assessee's claim. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order arbitrary and in violation of natural justice. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issue after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and considering all submissions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) acted in haste by rejecting the applications, especially since the RPT Act registration was pending and subsequently granted. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessees be given an adequate opportunity to be heard and to furnish necessary details regarding their activities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had withdrawn their registration applications before the CIT(E). Consequently, the appeals filed before the Tribunal were deemed not maintainable and were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had withdrawn their registration applications before the CIT(E). Consequently, the appeals filed against the rejection of these withdrawn applications were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine and verify the contents of Form 26AS and allow credit for the TDS mismatch, if any, to the assessees. It noted that Kachha Arhatias' turnover should only include commission, not the full sale value of crops, as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine and verify the Form 26AS and allow the TDS credit to the assessees, considering that as 'Kachha Arhatias', only their commission income should be treated as turnover, not the full sale value of the crops, as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986. The assessees were also given liberty to rectify TDS statements.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine and verify the Form 26AS and allow the TDS credit to the assessees, considering that as 'Kachha Arhatias', only their commission income should be treated as turnover, not the full sale value of the crops, as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986. The assessees were also given liberty to rectify TDS statements.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine and verify the Form 26AS and allow the TDS credit to the assessees, considering that as 'Kachha Arhatias', only their commission income should be treated as turnover, not the full sale value of the crops, as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986. The assessees were also given liberty to rectify TDS statements.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enables the levy of fee under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Since the TDS in question related to a period prior to this date, the levy of fee and interest was without legal authority and therefore illegal and invalid. The Tribunal deleted the fee and interest.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine and verify the contents of Form 26AS and allow credit for the TDS mismatch, if any, to the assessees. It acknowledged that Kachha Arhatias' turnover should only include commission income, not the full sale value of crops, as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine and verify the contents of Form 26AS and allow credit for the TDS mismatch, if any, to the assessees. It acknowledged that Kachha Arhatias' turnover should only include commission income, not the full sale value of crops, as per CBDT Circular No. 452.

The tribunal held that merely enabling a communication window on the portal could not be construed as granting an opportunity of being heard. It found that the CIT(A) violated natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee over a three-year period before passing the order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting proper opportunity.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions, which indicated that the acquisition of assets was not treated as an application of income in previous years. Therefore, the tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the depreciation claim under Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions, which indicated that the acquisition of assets was not treated as an application of income in previous years. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification of the depreciation claim under Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by ignoring the assessee's books of accounts, which were accepted, and by not examining the purchase and sales invoices. It found that the AO failed to establish that the cash deposits were unexplained or from activities other than declared business. The assessment order was also deemed invalid due to the AO's failure to issue a show cause notice.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal because the assessee had reapplied for registration and was subsequently granted registration under Section 12AB on 27.09.2025. The Ld. DR had no objection, and thus the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as the disputed amount was below the mandatory limit of Rs. 60,00,000 set by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine and verify the contents of Form 26AS and allow credit for the TDS mismatch, if any, to the assessees. It noted that Kachha Arhatias' turnover should only include commission income, not the sale value of crops, as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986.

The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine and verify the contents of Form 26AS and allow credit for the TDS mismatch, if any, to the assessees. It noted that Kachha Arhatias act as agents, and only their gross commission should be considered as turnover, not the sale value of crops belonging to farmers.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) acted in haste by rejecting the applications, especially since the RPT Act registration was pending and subsequently granted. It was also noted that the genuineness of activities is less relevant before the commencement of activities post-registration. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT (Exemption) to re-examine the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G, considering the subsequent registration under the RPT Act and allowing the assessees to furnish further details regarding their activities.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT (Exemption) to re-examine the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G, considering the subsequent registration under the RPT Act and allowing the assessees to furnish further details regarding their activities.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT (Exemption) to re-examine the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G, considering the subsequent registration under the RPT Act and allowing the assessees to furnish further details regarding their activities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) acted in haste by rejecting the applications, especially since the RPT Act registration was pending and subsequently granted. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessees be given adequate opportunity to present their case and provide necessary details regarding their activities.