ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2026

The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The tribunal found that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not make full compliances before the Assessing Officer, and the Assessing Officer, as well as the CIT(A), did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate their claim by producing Form 27C and reconciling the same. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate their claim by producing Form 27C and reconciling the same. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the 80G application solely on technical grounds of delay was erroneous, especially when the assessee had already obtained registration under Section 12AB for the same assessment year. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the liberal approach towards delay with sufficient cause as per Supreme Court pronouncements. However, the appeal was dismissed as it was filed against the order of the second, infructuous appeal filed before the CIT(A), with liberty to pursue the appeal against the first appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation. It also noted that both the Assessing Officer's and the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity for video conferencing. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for reassessment de novo, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 336 days, considering the assessee's reasons as sufficient cause. However, due to non-compliance before the Assessing Officer, the matter was remanded for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was not a ground for denial of exemption, especially when the report was available before the processing of the return. The filing of Form 10B/10BB is considered a procedural and directory requirement.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits and had violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the orders of both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were ex-parte, with no participation from the assessee. The CIT(A) also failed to decide all grounds of appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte and without deciding all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate their claim by producing Form 27C and reconciling the same. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate their claim by producing Form 27C and reconciling the same. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below disbelieved the assessee's explanation without any contrary material or inquiry. The assessee had provided details of the source of funds from his son, colleagues, and relatives, along with their PANs.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by re-confirming the bad debt addition, as it was not part of the remand order and had been deleted in the first round. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 20,89,991/- on account of bad debt written off was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 1006 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), subject to a deposit to the PMNRF. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits.

The Tribunal held that once the revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed by the ITAT, any consequential assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 has no legal sanctity and is a nullity. The pendency of an appeal before the High Court against the ITAT's order does not revive the consequential assessment.

The tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act can only be made if money is credited in the books of account during the impugned financial year. Since only journal entries were made in the books of account for the impugned year and the actual funds were received in the subsequent year, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 1006 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), subject to a deposit to the PMNRF. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 943 days, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to delay with sufficient cause. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued within the surviving period of limitation as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and TOLA. Since the assessee's counsel did not argue on the merits of the case, all grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for levying the penalties were deleted in the quantum appeal, the very foundation for the penalties ceased to exist. Consequently, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the cash payments identified by the AO were actually receipts from sales accounted for in the assessee's books. Therefore, the invocation of Section 69C was incorrect, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the cash payments identified by the AO were actually receipts from sales accounted for in the assessee's books. Therefore, the invocation of Section 69C was incorrect, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the cash payments identified by the AO were actually receipts from sales accounted for in the assessee's books. Therefore, the invocation of Section 69C was incorrect, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalty were no longer surviving, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 195 days, citing the need for substantial justice and liberal interpretation of sufficient cause for delay. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee will be provided an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 years in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation. It then restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, subject to the assessee paying a cost.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 943 days, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to delay with sufficient cause. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessment for AY 2015-16 was bad in law due to jurisdictional issues. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, agreeing that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2015-16 was bad in law due to improper jurisdiction and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on conjecture. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for levying the penalties were deleted in the quantum appeal, the very foundation for the penalties ceased to exist. Consequently, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the cash payments identified by the AO were actually receipts from sales accounted for in the assessee's books. Therefore, the invocation of Section 69C was incorrect, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee will be provided an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 55A of the Act for referring the valuation to the Department Valuation Officer. Therefore, the assessment order was not in accordance with the law.

The ITAT condoned the 92-day delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), considering the medical reasons provided. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly appreciated the documents produced by the assessee. Therefore, the issue of disallowance of expenses was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with supporting documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to consider the renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) after deciding the application for registration under Section 12A/12B.