ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO failed to record proper satisfaction, did not conduct an independent inquiry, relied on borrowed satisfaction, and disposed of the assessee's objections in a cryptic manner without a speaking order. The reopening was also beyond the four-year period without fulfilling the conditions of the proviso to Section 147.

The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred for 189 days without condoning the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, overrides the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the Resolution Plan for the corporate debtor (assessee) was approved by the NCLT, all prior proceedings, including tax appeals, become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee files all evidence regarding loan creditors and repayment before the Assessing Officer, such amounts cannot be added under Section 68 of the Act. The addition made by the AO was found not warranted based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide requisite information and evidence to the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals). To ensure the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity by remitting the matter back to the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine documents and pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary details and evidence to the AO. The Tribunal also noted that the proviso to Section 68, which was introduced later, was prospective. Citing various High Court decisions, it was held that mere low income of investors or non-compliance with notices does not automatically make the credit unexplained.

The Tribunal condoned the 140-day delay in the Revenue's appeal. Citing various judicial precedents, it held that once a resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC is approved, all pre-CIRP claims, including statutory dues not part of the plan, are extinguished, and IBC provisions override the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer was not warranted, referencing a coordinate bench's decision. It was noted that no penal action or proof of initiation of penal proceedings under the relevant Act was established against the assessee, making the exceptions to deductions under Section 37(1) inapplicable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It ruled that the declared income of Rs.3,97,510/- must be deducted from the estimated income of Rs.12,25,980/-. The Assessing Officer was directed to make this deduction, thereby allowing the assessee's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by accepting additional documents from the assessee without allowing the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine them or call for a remand report, violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked application of mind.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the assessee's written submissions and incorrectly stated that no explanation was filed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO solely on the basis of a retracted statement recorded during a survey and a 'dumb document' without any corroborative evidence cannot be sustained. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and various ITAT judgments stating that such statements have no evidentiary value and cannot be the basis for addition. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued to a company that had already merged and ceased to exist. Therefore, the assessment order was bad in law. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had quashed the assessment order on this technical ground, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

The Tribunal noted that similar cases were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to submit required documents and be heard.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the case should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment. The assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and make submissions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent her case properly. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a company that had already merged. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which quashed the assessment.

The Tribunal noted that in a separate quantum appeal, the underlying addition for processing charges was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, no longer survived, the penalty itself did not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.

The Tribunal, relying on High Court decisions, held that if the due date for depositing employee contributions to PF and ESI falls on a national holiday, the deposit made on the immediate next working day is considered timely. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for Rs.2,97,313/- and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause for the delay due to a lack of understanding of the correct procedure and technical rejection. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing an ex parte order solely on the grounds of non-compliance, which upheld the AO's order, was not justified. In the interest of substantial justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment regarding Covid-19 period exclusions. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural or directory requirement, not mandatory. Non-compliance with this procedural requirement should not lead to the denial of the substantive right to claim Foreign Tax Credit, especially when supported by judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, citing extensions provided by TOLA due to the COVID period. However, it ruled that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, as the law mandates a decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that proper representation was not made at the assessment and appellate stages and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adequate adjudication. Following precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), recognizing the clerical and bonafide nature of the error. It held that the assessee should not be penalized for mistakes made by their consultant and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made proper compliance before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee's cash payments for commission and salary did not violate Section 40A(3) as individual transactions were below the statutory threshold. It was also held that Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence was inapplicable since the relevant facts and documents were already before the AO, who had misappreciated them. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without issuing a jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid and liable to be quashed. The additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the notice was admitted.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. The assessment order was quashed as bad in law. The Tribunal also found that the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by one authority and the assessment was framed by another, making the assessment without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not incurred any expenses in relation to earning the exempt income. The CIT(A)'s finding that no disallowance was required was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal is barred by limitation, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. A co-ordinate bench had also decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that if the funds were actually applied by the trust, the deduction should be allowed, restoring the issue to the JAO for decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the discrepancy in sales was due to an auditor's mistake, admitted by the assessee. It held that only the profit element embedded in the undisclosed sales, calculated at the disclosed profit rate of 7.03% (Rs. 3,83,865/-), should be taxed, not the entire sales amount. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO for the full sales amount was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were vague, incomplete, based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without independent application of mind, and lacked a clear link to tangible material. It further ruled that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding investor details and that non-compliance by some subscribers to summons alone was an insufficient basis for a Section 68 addition, especially since some subscriber assessments were completed under Section 143(3). Additionally, the Tribunal affirmed that the proviso to Section 68, introduced by Finance Act 2012, is prospective and not applicable to AY 2012-13.

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were cryptic, vague, and demonstrated a non-application of mind, relying solely on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without conducting any preliminary inquiry or establishing a 'live link' between the information and the belief of income escaping assessment. Citing several precedents, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the ensuing assessment were invalid and quashed them.

The Tribunal held that the late filing of Form 67 is a technical issue and not fatal to the claim of foreign tax credit. The assessee is entitled to the foreign tax credit as per Section 90 of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that if the funds were actually applied by the trust, the deduction should be allowed despite the error in preparing the return. The appeals were restored to the file of JAO for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the property was booked in 2016 and registered in 2019. Considering the father's advanced age, his retirement history, and the fact that his accumulated salary and pension income was not taxable, the Tribunal accepted the explanation provided by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the funds for the property purchase and stamp duty were from the father's personal savings.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld. DR did not oppose this request.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all necessary details, but neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) conducted proper verification. It was held that non-compliance with summons under Section 131 by the share applicant cannot be the sole ground for an addition in the assessee's hands, citing multiple precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including bank statements and cash withdrawal details, explaining the sources of cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had inadvertently considered only one bank account.

The Tribunal found that the Pr.CIT's invocation of Section 263 based solely on the AO's proposal was not sustainable, citing established jurisprudence requiring the Pr.CIT to apply independent mind and fulfill the twin conditions for revisional jurisdiction. It noted that the Faceless Assessment Unit had accepted the returned income after document verification, and the DVO's valuation was based on an 'illegal referral' and not considered in the original assessment.

The Tribunal found that the expenses added by the AO were not verified due to a lack of evidence from the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.