ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence and grant the Assessing Officer an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case properly. Both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not applicable to the loan transaction. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the lender's identity, creditworthiness, and the transaction's genuineness, and that the AO had not conducted proper investigation. The Tribunal also noted that the lender's income had been accepted in its own assessments.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowances under Section 14A as there was no exempt income. It also directed the deletion of additions related to depreciation and unsecured loans, finding the loan transactions genuine. The claim for carry forward of business losses was also allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the documents relied upon were seized from the premises of other business entities, not from the assessee's business premises. Furthermore, these documents did not bear the assessee's name, signature, or handwriting. The Tribunal observed that Section 69A of the Act applies to money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles found in the possession of the assessee and not recorded in their books, for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. In this case, the documents were considered 'dumb documents' and did not fall within the purview of Section 69A. The Tribunal also held that the presumption under Section 292C of the Act cannot be drawn against the assessee when the documents were not found from his premises. Citing decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Tribunal found the addition based on the peak balance to be unreasonable and implausible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) without deciding the merits violated Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the respective authorities for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delays before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the documents relied upon were seized from the premises of other business entities, not from the assessee's business premises. Furthermore, these documents did not bear the assessee's name, signature, or handwriting. The Tribunal observed that Section 69A of the Act applies to money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles found in the possession of the assessee and not recorded in their books, for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. In this case, the documents were considered 'dumb documents' and did not fall within the purview of Section 69A. The Tribunal also held that the presumption under Section 292C of the Act cannot be drawn against the assessee when the documents were not found from his premises. Citing decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Tribunal found the addition based on the peak balance to be unreasonable and implausible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the documents relied upon were seized from the premises of other business entities, not from the assessee's business premises. Furthermore, these documents did not bear the assessee's name, signature, or handwriting. The Tribunal observed that Section 69A of the Act applies to money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles found in the possession of the assessee and not recorded in their books, for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. In this case, the documents were considered 'dumb documents' and did not fall within the purview of Section 69A. The Tribunal also held that the presumption under Section 292C of the Act cannot be drawn against the assessee when the documents were not found from his premises. Citing decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Tribunal found the addition based on the peak balance to be unreasonable and implausible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee furnished all details and evidence regarding the loan creditors, and the loan was repaid through banking channels, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documents regarding share subscribers. The AO's observation about non-compliance was factually incorrect, and the Revenue failed to conduct independent investigations. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was invalid as it was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalidly initiated, and consequently, the assessment framed under Section 153C was also invalid. The Tribunal noted that the search on the third party, Shree Kuberji Group, was conducted on 06.02.2020. However, the satisfaction note in the assessee's case was recorded on 08.02.2024, and the notice under Section 153C was issued on 07.03.2024. The Tribunal referred to the amendment to Section 153C by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021, which inserted sub-section (3), stating that the section shall not apply to searches initiated on or after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal reasoned that in cases of third-party searches, the relevant date for determining the applicability of the amended provisions is the date of recording the satisfaction note or the date of handing over of incriminating materials. Since the satisfaction note was recorded on 08.02.2024, which is after 01.04.2021, the assessment proceedings should have been framed under the new regime (Sections 147/148). The Tribunal followed the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Shivdham Buildtech (P.) Ltd. vs. JCIT, which held that assessment under Section 153C is not permissible if the date of search falls beyond 01.04.2021, making any notice issued thereafter non-est. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings under Section 153C and the consequent assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions on a hypothetical basis despite the cash transactions being duly recorded in the audited books of accounts. The interest income was also already offered to tax.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the documents relied upon were seized from the premises of other business entities, not from the assessee's business premises. Furthermore, these documents did not bear the assessee's name, signature, or handwriting. The Tribunal observed that Section 69A of the Act applies to money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles found in the possession of the assessee and not recorded in their books, for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. In this case, the documents were considered 'dumb documents' and did not fall within the purview of Section 69A. The Tribunal also held that the presumption under Section 292C of the Act cannot be drawn against the assessee when the documents were not found from his premises. Citing decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Tribunal found the addition based on the peak balance to be unreasonable and implausible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the documents relied upon were seized from the premises of other business entities, not from the assessee's business premises. Furthermore, these documents did not bear the assessee's name, signature, or handwriting. The Tribunal observed that Section 69A of the Act applies to money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles found in the possession of the assessee and not recorded in their books, for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. In this case, the documents were considered 'dumb documents' and did not fall within the purview of Section 69A. The Tribunal also held that the presumption under Section 292C of the Act cannot be drawn against the assessee when the documents were not found from his premises. Citing decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Tribunal found the addition based on the peak balance to be unreasonable and implausible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence and grant the Assessing Officer an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence and grant the Assessing Officer an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and present its case.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence and grant the Assessing Officer an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) without deciding the merits violated Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the respective authorities for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowances under Section 14A as there was no exempt income. It also directed the deletion of additions related to depreciation and unsecured loans, finding the loan transactions genuine. The claim for carry forward of business losses was also allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delays before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 282A(2) of the Income Tax Act, a notice is deemed authenticated if the name and office of the issuing authority are printed or written thereon. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Asro Arcade, the notice was considered valid.

The Tribunal held that non-compliance with the conditions of the DTVSV Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, triggers the revival of the appeal under Section 4(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was revived.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit proper responses to the queries raised.

The Tribunal held that while the delay was a concern, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable on a voluntary disclosure made under Section 132(4) if it is included in the return filed under Section 153A and there is no difference between returned and assessed income. Similarly, penalty on estimated additions in an unabated assessment year without incriminating material is unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order as it was not a best judgment assessment under section 144. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was delayed but condoned it. The Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee will be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned during the year. Since the assessee had no exempt income, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the investors. The AO had not brought any adverse material to disprove the transactions.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey has no evidentiary value for making an addition unless corroborated by other material. Since the Assessing Officer relied solely on the retracted statement without corroborating evidence, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case on merits.

The tribunal found that the lower authorities had passed ex parte orders and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal found that the lower authorities had passed ex parte orders and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not make proper submissions before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored to him for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the issue of double taxation required examination by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for regular approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to decide the issue of granting registration on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO failed to record satisfaction in the order passed under Section 148A(d) and did not mention if the escaped income was represented in the form of an asset. This decision followed a coordinate bench ruling and a Delhi High Court judgment.

The ITAT condoned the delay for AY 2013-14 and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the legal ground regarding assumption of jurisdiction. For AY 2018-19, the ITAT remanded the issue of set-off of brought forward losses to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. It set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for deciding the legal ground regarding the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147, which had not been adjudicated. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of being heard. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of loss of ₹29,91,381/- and remanded the issue to the AO for considering the claim of set-off of brought forward losses as per law, as the assessee had failed to furnish cogent evidence to the CIT(A). The issue of one-time settlement was not pressed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that other grounds were general or not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted on 17.07.2019, and for AY 2015-16, the assessment was unabated as the time to issue a notice under Section 143(2) had expired. It is settled law that in an unabated assessment, the AO's jurisdiction to make additions is limited to incriminating materials seized during the search. As no incriminating seized materials were found in this case, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the addition of share capital money. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT, Central – 3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which held that in the absence of any incriminating seized material, the AO has no jurisdiction to make an addition in an unabated assessment year. The issue in AY 2017-18 was substantially similar, and the same reasoning applied. Therefore, both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It admitted the additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 50C, allowing a 10% tolerance limit, is retrospective. Since the difference between the declared sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was 8.50%, which is within the 10% limit, no addition is warranted.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal based on CBDT Instruction No.9 of 2024, which directs subordinate authorities not to challenge orders of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal if the tax effect is below a certain threshold, unless exceptions apply.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the loans, including bank statements and repayment of the loans. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the additions under Section 68 were not justified when the assessee furnished all necessary evidence and repaid the loans.