ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all the necessary details and evidence regarding the loan creditors, including audited financial statements, ITRs, sources of funds, bank statements, and loan confirmations. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the loans in the subsequent financial year. The Tribunal found that the AO had relied on the investigation wing's report without conducting independent inquiries into the evidence provided by the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that once an assessee furnishes all documentary evidence for loan transactions, including the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors, and has also repaid the loans, the provisions of Section 68 are not applicable. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which held that if an assessee provides all evidence and repays the loans, additions under Section 68 are not warranted. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all the necessary details and evidence regarding the loan creditors, including audited financial statements, ITRs, sources of funds, bank statements, and loan confirmations. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the loans in the subsequent financial year. The Tribunal found that the AO had relied on the investigation wing's report without conducting independent inquiries into the evidence provided by the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that once an assessee furnishes all documentary evidence for loan transactions, including the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors, and has also repaid the loans, the provisions of Section 68 are not applicable. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which held that if an assessee provides all evidence and repays the loans, additions under Section 68 are not warranted. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot survive in the absence of a substantive assessment. The concept of substantive and protective additions are integrated; one cannot exist without the other. The AO's role is to protect the revenue's interest by making additions on a protective basis in one hand and a substantive basis in another, ensuring that if one addition fails, the other can be sustained. In this case, the AO made an addition on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee, but no substantive addition was made in the hands of any other person. The Tribunal relied on the co-ordinate bench decision in Pravinkumar Valjibhai Pujara HUF Vs. ITO and the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Suresh K.Jajoo Vs. ACIT, which held that substantive assessment must precede protective assessment. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO on a protective basis without a substantive assessment was held to be unsustainable and a nullity in the eyes of law. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee on merit were dismissed as the assessee succeeded on a technical ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that in the set-aside proceedings, the assessee had provided comprehensive documentary evidence for the three subscribers, including bank statements, audited financials, PANs, addresses, certificates of incorporation, source of source, ITR acknowledgments, and director details. It was observed that the subscribers had complied with notices under Section 131 and Section 133(6) of the Act by filing all requested details and evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was made for the reason of non-compliance with Section 131 due to the absence of personal appearance of directors, which it considered insufficient when robust documentary evidence was provided and complied with. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court's decisions in PCIT vs. Bright Commodeal Pvt Ltd and PCIT vs. Shipra Enclave Pvt Ltd, which held that documented traceability through banking channels carries greater evidentiary weight than suspicion, and that the non-appearance of directors does not invalidate documented transactions, especially when entities are active taxpayers. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified and directed the AO to delete it.

The Tribunal held that the return of income filed on November 23rd, 2020, is a valid return within the meaning of Section 139 of the Act, as it was filed within the time allowed under Section 139(4) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had accepted the delay in filing the audit report as a procedural mistake but upheld the disallowance based on the delayed filing of the ITR. Citing the co-ordinate bench decision in DCIT Vs Bishnupur Public Education Institute and other precedents, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a return filed under Section 139(4) is valid for claiming exemption. The Tribunal also referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO(Exemption), which held that the filing of an audit report is directory and substantial compliance would suffice. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee complied with the conditions under Section 12A(1)(b) and (ba), and there was no dispute regarding the charitable activities, the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 should be granted. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the exemption under Section 11. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the return of income filed on November 23rd, 2020, is a valid return within the meaning of Section 139 of the Act, as it was filed within the time allowed under Section 139(4) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had accepted the delay in filing the audit report as a procedural mistake but upheld the disallowance based on the delayed filing of the ITR. Citing the co-ordinate bench decision in DCIT Vs Bishnupur Public Education Institute and other precedents, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a return filed under Section 139(4) is valid for claiming exemption. The Tribunal also referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO(Exemption), which held that the filing of an audit report is directory and substantial compliance would suffice. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee complied with the conditions under Section 12A(1)(b) and (ba), and there was no dispute regarding the charitable activities, the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 should be granted. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the exemption under Section 11. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee. It held that the assessment order was passed by an officer who lacked jurisdiction, making it a nullity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's total income for AY 2013-14 was Rs. 19,80,100/-, which is below the Rs. 20 lakh threshold specified in CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 for corporate returns. The assessment order was passed by the DCIT, Circle-32, Kolkata, who did not have the requisite jurisdiction as per the said instruction. The Tribunal relied on the decision in R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which followed Raghvendra Mohta and was confirmed by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court. The Tribunal found that the facts in Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology were distinguishable. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. Since the legal ground was allowed and the assessment order quashed, the grounds on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on the legal ground.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine solely on the ground of delay, without condoning it and deciding the issue on merits, which is a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be cogent and bonafide and accordingly condoned the delay. Furthermore, considering that the assessment was framed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices, and in the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by granting the assessee one more opportunity before the AO to present their case. The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the matter afresh. This decision was based on the reasoning that the assessee should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments and evidence. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remitted for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee made an inadvertent mistake in computing book profit by not adding provisions for tax. While this mistake led to a lower book profit being returned, the assessment was ultimately made under Section 115JB of the Act, which resulted in a higher book profit than the income computed under normal provisions. The Tribunal reasoned that where adjustments are made to the book profit and income is assessed under Section 115JB, no penalty can be levied because the alleged mis-reporting had no impact on the tax payable under Section 115JB. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 25/2015 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. M/s. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (which approved the Delhi High Court's decision), and other cited cases. The ratio decidendi is that if the assessment is based on the higher of the normal income or book profit (Section 115JB), and the alleged concealment or mis-reporting does not affect the tax payable under Section 115JB, then penalty under Section 270A is not leviable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the entire penalty. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹4,16,62,280/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was incorrect and unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an authorized stamp vendor who receives money from property purchasers for stamp duty, deposits it in his bank account, and then remits it to the Government treasury for stamp paper issuance. The Tribunal found that the money was deposited and immediately remitted, not accumulated. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that similar cash deposits for AY 2017-18 were accepted by the AO in a regular assessment under Section 143(3). Following the principle of consistency, as supported by the Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang and the Bombay High Court in Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal decided that the addition was uncalled for. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The assessment was originally framed under Section 143(3) on 26.12.2011. The notice for reopening under Section 148 was issued on 30.03.2016, which is more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2009-10). According to the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act, reopening beyond four years is permissible only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts. The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening did not contain any whisper of such failure on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the reopening did not meet the parameters of the first proviso to Section 147. The Tribunal relied on its co-ordinate bench's decision in DCIT Vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited and the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. Consequently, the Cross Objection of the assessee was allowed, quashing the reopening of assessment. As a result, the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of additions on merit became infructuous and was dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for adjudication, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (Supra), as it was a purely legal issue not requiring further factual verification. The Tribunal found that Section 151A of the Act, dealing with faceless assessment of income escaping assessment, was brought onto the statute book with effect from 01.11.2020 but was notified and made effective only on 29.03.2022. Since the assessment proceedings, including the notice under Section 142(1) dated 03.08.2021 and the assessment order dated 13.09.2021, were initiated and framed prior to 29.03.2022, the NFAC assumed jurisdiction without authority. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO was held to be without jurisdiction and unsustainable. The Tribunal followed the decision of a co-ordinate bench in MD Mahimud SK Vs. ITO and Nabiul Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd. VS. I.T.O. The assessment order was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

On the first issue concerning Section 14A, the Tribunal held that Section 14A(2) and Rule 8D(1) mandate that the AO must be dissatisfied with the assessee's claim before resorting to the method prescribed by the Rules. The amendment to Rule 8D in 2016 altered the formula for computation but did not remove the prerequisite of the AO recording his dissatisfaction with cogent reasons. The AO's observation that the assessee's disallowance was unsatisfactory because it was not as per Rule 8D was insufficient. The Tribunal found that the AO had not recorded any cogent reasons for not accepting the assessee's apportionment and therefore could not have resorted to Rule 8D. The disallowance under Section 14A was limited to the amount suo motu offered by the assessee. This ground was allowed in favour of the assessee, referencing previous ITAT orders. On the second issue, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of goodwill, brands, and distribution network arising on demerger. The intangible assets were acquired for a consideration based on valuation reports. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention of tax evasion raised for the first time during the appeal, noting that the AO had not invoked relevant provisions if such was the concern. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, discontinuing depreciation on goodwill, were not applicable to the assessment year in question. This issue was allowed. On the third issue regarding Section 80G deduction, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had made eligible donations and the admissible deduction was mentioned in the Tax Audit Report and computation of total income. Although no amount was claimed in Schedule Part B-TI due to losses, the assessment resulted in positive gross total income due to disallowances. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the AO to consider the claim. The matter was remanded to the AO for consideration in accordance with law. This issue was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated March 29, 2024, allowing only 30 days for furnishing the return of income, is invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law. The Tribunal noted that the mandatory period for furnishing the return should be 60 days. The assessment framed consequent to this invalid notice is also considered null and void. The Tribunal relied on the decision of its co-ordinate bench in M/s Blackstone Overseas Pvt. ltd. Vs. ITO, which followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Panjos Builders (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and the Bombay High Court in Mukesh J. Ruparel v. ITO. These decisions held that a notice under Section 148A(b) prescribing less than the mandatory seven days is invalid, and consequently, the subsequent assessment orders are also invalid. Since the facts were materially the same, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment framed by the AO. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessee's argument that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view was accepted. The Tribunal noted that the CBI Court order, which was brought to the PCIT's notice, had specifically found no evidence of short delivery of PDS atta and that the atta delivered met quality standards. The Tribunal found that the PCIT disregarded this order and relied on information from the Enforcement Directorate without cogent material. The Tribunal also rejected the revenue's selective interpretation of the CBI Court's bail order. Furthermore, the dropping of GST proceedings and the absence of significant unearthing of unaccounted assets during the search supported the assessee's contention. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, quashed the revisionary proceedings under Section 263, and allowed the assessee's appeal.

For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 11.04.2023, while the time available to the AO to issue the notice was until 01.04.2023, as per the sixth proviso to Section 149 of the Act. The AO had only 7 days from the assessee's reply (filed on 24.03.2023) to issue the notice. Since the notice was issued beyond this period, the Tribunal found it to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were quashed. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-1, Kolkata. However, as per Section 149(1)(b)(iii) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagwan Sahai Sharma and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Wudstay Travels (P.) Ltd., the specified authority for such approval should have been the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent. Therefore, the sanction granted was invalid, rendering the notice under Section 148 and the consequent assessment void. The cross-objection for AY 2019-20 was allowed, and the assessment was quashed.

For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 11.04.2023, while the time available to the AO to issue the notice was until 01.04.2023, as per the sixth proviso to Section 149 of the Act. The AO had only 7 days from the assessee's reply (filed on 24.03.2023) to issue the notice. Since the notice was issued beyond this period, the Tribunal found it to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were quashed. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-1, Kolkata. However, as per Section 149(1)(b)(iii) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagwan Sahai Sharma and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Wudstay Travels (P.) Ltd., the specified authority for such approval should have been the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent. Therefore, the sanction granted was invalid, rendering the notice under Section 148 and the consequent assessment void. The cross-objection for AY 2019-20 was allowed, and the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment order was void ab initio. On the first issue, it was found that the re-opening was made after four years from the end of the assessment year, and thus, approval was required from the Principal Commissioner (Pr. CIT) or Commissioner (CIT) as per Section 151(1) of the Act. Since the approval was obtained from the ACIT, Range – 17, Kolkata, it was invalid. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment order were held to be invalid and bad in law. Ground No. 1 was allowed. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal observed that the AO made an addition of speculation loss of Rs. 3,47,08,982/-, which was different from the reasons recorded for re-opening concerning NMCE profit. Following the decisions in CIT Vs. M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., and Ranbaxy Laboratories vs. CIT, the Tribunal held that once no addition is made for the reasons recorded, the AO has no jurisdiction to make any other addition. Therefore, the addition of speculation loss was quashed, and the reopening proceedings and the consequent order were set aside. Ground No. 3 was allowed. On the third issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had suo motu added back the loss in commodity trading of Rs. 3,47,08,982/- to its total income and carried forward the said speculation loss. The AO's observation that the assessee had adjusted the loss was incorrect. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) resulted in double taxation. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. Ground No. 7 was allowed. Other grounds were not adjudicated. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for Grounds 1 and 9 (AY 2017-18), the Revenue's grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to raise these grounds as facts were discussed at length in the assessment and appellate orders, and no fresh evidence was submitted at the appellate stage. Regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- under Section 68 (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness solely based on an excel file and statements without providing specific findings on why creditworthiness was doubted. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- under Section 271D (AY 2019-20). The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty notice was defective, lacking specifics about the transaction, amount, or counter-party. Furthermore, the alleged seized documents did not clearly link to the assessee, and the penalty calculation involved an unexplained multiplication. The Tribunal also noted that the additions under Section 69D for identical material had been deleted. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia was relied upon. The Tribunal found the foundation for the penalty had fallen, and the Revenue could not establish the transaction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that for Grounds 1 and 9 (AY 2017-18), the Revenue's grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to raise these grounds as facts were discussed at length in the assessment and appellate orders, and no fresh evidence was submitted at the appellate stage. Regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- under Section 68 (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness solely based on an excel file and statements without providing specific findings on why creditworthiness was doubted. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- under Section 271D (AY 2019-20). The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty notice was defective, lacking specifics about the transaction, amount, or counter-party. Furthermore, the alleged seized documents did not clearly link to the assessee, and the penalty calculation involved an unexplained multiplication. The Tribunal also noted that the additions under Section 69D for identical material had been deleted. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia was relied upon. The Tribunal found the foundation for the penalty had fallen, and the Revenue could not establish the transaction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of low tax effect. For AY 2012-13, the tax effect was Rs. 25,56,897/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Senior DR could not rebut this fact or demonstrate any exception. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that if, upon re-verification, the AO finds the tax effect to be above the limit or the case falls under an exception, the Revenue can file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, as their respective tax effects (Rs. 13,81,798/-, Rs. 6,70,996/-, Rs. 11,20,925/-, Rs. 50,54,359/-, and Rs. 10,67,487/-) were also below the prescribed limit. Consequently, all grounds taken by the Revenue in these appeals were also dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of low tax effect. For AY 2012-13, the tax effect was Rs. 25,56,897/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Senior DR could not rebut this fact or demonstrate any exception. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that if, upon re-verification, the AO finds the tax effect to be above the limit or the case falls under an exception, the Revenue can file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, as their respective tax effects (Rs. 13,81,798/-, Rs. 6,70,996/-, Rs. 11,20,925/-, Rs. 50,54,359/-, and Rs. 10,67,487/-) were also below the prescribed limit. Consequently, all grounds taken by the Revenue in these appeals were also dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of low tax effect. For AY 2012-13, the tax effect was Rs. 25,56,897/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Senior DR could not rebut this fact or demonstrate any exception. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that if, upon re-verification, the AO finds the tax effect to be above the limit or the case falls under an exception, the Revenue can file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, as their respective tax effects (Rs. 13,81,798/-, Rs. 6,70,996/-, Rs. 11,20,925/-, Rs. 50,54,359/-, and Rs. 10,67,487/-) were also below the prescribed limit. Consequently, all grounds taken by the Revenue in these appeals were also dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of low tax effect. For AY 2012-13, the tax effect was Rs. 25,56,897/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Senior DR could not rebut this fact or demonstrate any exception. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that if, upon re-verification, the AO finds the tax effect to be above the limit or the case falls under an exception, the Revenue can file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, as their respective tax effects (Rs. 13,81,798/-, Rs. 6,70,996/-, Rs. 11,20,925/-, Rs. 50,54,359/-, and Rs. 10,67,487/-) were also below the prescribed limit. Consequently, all grounds taken by the Revenue in these appeals were also dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of low tax effect. For AY 2012-13, the tax effect was Rs. 25,56,897/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Senior DR could not rebut this fact or demonstrate any exception. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that if, upon re-verification, the AO finds the tax effect to be above the limit or the case falls under an exception, the Revenue can file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, as their respective tax effects (Rs. 13,81,798/-, Rs. 6,70,996/-, Rs. 11,20,925/-, Rs. 50,54,359/-, and Rs. 10,67,487/-) were also below the prescribed limit. Consequently, all grounds taken by the Revenue in these appeals were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that for Grounds 1 and 9 (AY 2017-18), the Revenue's grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to raise these grounds as facts were discussed at length in the assessment and appellate orders, and no fresh evidence was submitted at the appellate stage. Regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- under Section 68 (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness solely based on an excel file and statements without providing specific findings on why creditworthiness was doubted. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- under Section 271D (AY 2019-20). The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty notice was defective, lacking specifics about the transaction, amount, or counter-party. Furthermore, the alleged seized documents did not clearly link to the assessee, and the penalty calculation involved an unexplained multiplication. The Tribunal also noted that the additions under Section 69D for identical material had been deleted. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia was relied upon. The Tribunal found the foundation for the penalty had fallen, and the Revenue could not establish the transaction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the difference arose due to accounting presentation, this was not supported by evidence. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition because no reconciliation duly confirmed by Apollo Tyre Limited was produced to demonstrate that the security deposit was adjusted against the payable balance. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's explanation regarding the adjustment of the security deposit did not appear to have been fully appreciated. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Bench decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancy. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal on merits by passing a speaking order. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to make further submissions, and Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, was to be followed. An opportunity of being heard was also to be provided to the Ld. AO if required. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of low tax effect. For AY 2012-13, the tax effect was Rs. 25,56,897/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Senior DR could not rebut this fact or demonstrate any exception. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2012-13 was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that if, upon re-verification, the AO finds the tax effect to be above the limit or the case falls under an exception, the Revenue can file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, as their respective tax effects (Rs. 13,81,798/-, Rs. 6,70,996/-, Rs. 11,20,925/-, Rs. 50,54,359/-, and Rs. 10,67,487/-) were also below the prescribed limit. Consequently, all grounds taken by the Revenue in these appeals were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that for Grounds 1 and 9 (AY 2017-18), the Revenue's grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to raise these grounds as facts were discussed at length in the assessment and appellate orders, and no fresh evidence was submitted at the appellate stage. Regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- under Section 68 (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness solely based on an excel file and statements without providing specific findings on why creditworthiness was doubted. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- under Section 271D (AY 2019-20). The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty notice was defective, lacking specifics about the transaction, amount, or counter-party. Furthermore, the alleged seized documents did not clearly link to the assessee, and the penalty calculation involved an unexplained multiplication. The Tribunal also noted that the additions under Section 69D for identical material had been deleted. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia was relied upon. The Tribunal found the foundation for the penalty had fallen, and the Revenue could not establish the transaction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC on 21.03.2022 was bad in law and consequently quashed. The reasoning was that the notification by which the National Faceless Assessment Centre was made effective was dated 29.03.2022. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Md. Mahimud SK (ITA Nos. 223082229/Kol/2024) and another decision in Nand Kumar Chowdhury, where it was held that assessment proceedings taken by the NFAC prior to the notification making the faceless scheme effective were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that one of its members was a party to the Md. Mahimud SK order. Therefore, the technical issue regarding jurisdiction was decided against the revenue. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on this technical ground. The Tribunal did not decide the other issues raised by the assessee (legality of notice u/s 148 and borrowed satisfaction) as the appeal was allowed on the jurisdictional point.

The Tribunal held that for Grounds 1 and 9 (AY 2017-18), the Revenue's grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to raise these grounds as facts were discussed at length in the assessment and appellate orders, and no fresh evidence was submitted at the appellate stage. Regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- under Section 68 (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness solely based on an excel file and statements without providing specific findings on why creditworthiness was doubted. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- under Section 271D (AY 2019-20). The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty notice was defective, lacking specifics about the transaction, amount, or counter-party. Furthermore, the alleged seized documents did not clearly link to the assessee, and the penalty calculation involved an unexplained multiplication. The Tribunal also noted that the additions under Section 69D for identical material had been deleted. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia was relied upon. The Tribunal found the foundation for the penalty had fallen, and the Revenue could not establish the transaction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that for Grounds 1 and 9 (AY 2017-18), the Revenue's grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to raise these grounds as facts were discussed at length in the assessment and appellate orders, and no fresh evidence was submitted at the appellate stage. Regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- under Section 68 (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness solely based on an excel file and statements without providing specific findings on why creditworthiness was doubted. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- under Section 271D (AY 2019-20). The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty notice was defective, lacking specifics about the transaction, amount, or counter-party. Furthermore, the alleged seized documents did not clearly link to the assessee, and the penalty calculation involved an unexplained multiplication. The Tribunal also noted that the additions under Section 69D for identical material had been deleted. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia was relied upon. The Tribunal found the foundation for the penalty had fallen, and the Revenue could not establish the transaction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that for Grounds 1 and 9 (AY 2017-18), the Revenue's grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to raise these grounds as facts were discussed at length in the assessment and appellate orders, and no fresh evidence was submitted at the appellate stage. Regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹5,17,00,000/- under Section 68 (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness solely based on an excel file and statements without providing specific findings on why creditworthiness was doubted. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty of ₹4,00,00,000/- under Section 271D (AY 2019-20). The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty notice was defective, lacking specifics about the transaction, amount, or counter-party. Furthermore, the alleged seized documents did not clearly link to the assessee, and the penalty calculation involved an unexplained multiplication. The Tribunal also noted that the additions under Section 69D for identical material had been deleted. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia was relied upon. The Tribunal found the foundation for the penalty had fallen, and the Revenue could not establish the transaction. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.