ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under section 148 was defective as it was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, contravening section 151A and lacking a DIN. Furthermore, the additions were based on unverified excel sheets and retracted statements without independent corroboration, rendering them unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the relevant period predated stricter 'source of source' provisions and that the Assessing Officer had not provided adequate opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) referred the matter to the DVO to determine the fair value of the property. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO with a direction to refer the matter to the DVO for proper valuation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the addition was made on an estimation basis. Furthermore, the penalty notice issued was deemed defective as it did not strike off the irrelevant limb of the charge, rendering it void ab initio.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it held that an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be made if the Assessee does not maintain any books of account, citing High Court judgments. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessee had discharged its onus by producing documentary evidence, to meet the ends of justice and litigation, and to plug revenue leakage, the addition restricted by the CIT(A) to 3% of the purchases is upheld. The Revenue's appeal and the Assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the ex parte assessment and penalty orders were not sustainable as the assessee was demonstrably unaware of the notices due to his lack of digital literacy. The orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that mere claims not sustainable in law do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The disallowances in this case were due to differences of opinion and bona fide mistakes, not wilful concealment or inaccuracy. Therefore, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) were not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO were void ab initio due to being in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under Section 151A and the absence of a valid Document Identification Number (DIN). Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on unverified excel sheets and uncorroborated, retracted statements was procedurally infirm and lacked evidentiary foundation. Therefore, the additions under Section 69A/69B were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was condonable, referencing various High Court judgments that treat the filing of an audit report as a procedural requirement rather than a substantive one. The Tribunal also noted that CBDT circulars do not curtail the appellate authorities' powers to condone delay. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the belatedly filed Form 10B and determine the tax liability.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, following the liberal approach mandated by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal found that substantial justice would be preferred over technicalities and restored the matter to the AO for denovo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided by the assessee and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding that the AO's addition was based on suspicion without cogent evidence and lacked proper appreciation of material. The assessee's transactions were through a registered broker on a recognized stock exchange, with supporting documents, demonstrating an actual trading loss of Rs. 14,018/-, not the alleged accommodation entry.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was indeed below the monetary threshold set by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the case fell under any exceptions to this circular. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed in-limine as not maintainable, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) does not exclude cooperative societies earning interest income from other cooperative banks. It also noted that the assessee filed its return within the extended due date for AY 2018-19. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed against an ex-parte order. Considering the circumstances, including the claim of non-receipt of notices and the termination of the redevelopment agreement, the matter was restored back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte assessment orders and penalty were invalid as the assessee demonstrably unaware of the e-notices. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment with proper notice.

The Tribunal restored the matter of Rs. 10,00,000/- advance to the AO for verification of payment and TDS applicability. Regarding motor car expenses, the disallowance was restricted to 10%. The disallowance of telephone expenses was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to be invoked, the payment must be for the individual benefit of the shareholder. Since the car was used for the company's business, and depreciation was allowed to the company, there was no evidence of personal benefit to the shareholder. Therefore, the deeming provisions of Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked.

The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were void ab initio due to violation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme (Section 151A) and the absence of a valid DIN. Furthermore, the additions made under Sections 69A/69B were deleted, as the evidence (retracted statements and uncorroborated Excel sheets) was deemed insufficient and amounted to mere suspicion.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to jurisdictional infirmities, specifically the issuance of the notice under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the scheme notified under Section 151A. Additionally, the court found that the addition was based on unverified Excel sheets and uncorroborated statements that were later retracted, lacking independent evidence.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's undertaking to provide missing details and the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(A). One more opportunity was granted to the assessee to furnish necessary details, reconciliation, and evidence regarding TDS shortfalls.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made efforts to provide evidence, including affidavits, to support their claim that the cash deposits were from business income, despite the delay and the passage of time. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to prove their claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the genuineness of the transaction by producing relevant documents and that no allegations of manipulation or investigation were made against the assessee. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file an audit report with the return is procedural and directory, not mandatory. Given that the audit report was filed during appellate proceedings and there was no malafide intent or adverse finding on merits, the delay in filing the audit report should be condoned.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessee is uneducated and unaware of electronic notices, failure to participate cannot be considered contumacious. Therefore, the ex parte assessment orders and penalty were set aside.

The Tribunal held that a notice u/s 143(2) is jurisdictional. Issuing such a notice in the name of a deceased assessee, after being informed of the death, renders the subsequent proceedings void-ab-initio and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO did not adequately examine the nature of income from securities held for less than 12 months, specifically whether it should be classified as business income. The issue of taxability as short-term capital gains under Section 111A was examined, but not the alternative classification as business income.

The Tribunal held that there was no malafide intention in the delay and that the reason provided (expired DSC) constituted a sufficient cause for condonation, following Supreme Court precedents. The delay was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application on hyper-technical grounds without considering the merits and the evidence submitted by the assessee was unjustified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted proof of its prior registration. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. Following a precedent from a related case, the Tribunal found no positive evidence of any cash or unaccounted income outside the books and directed the deletion of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, it was found that there was no positive evidence of cash or unaccounted income outside the books. The disclosed profit margins were deemed sufficient to cover any commission element.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision was based on the merits of the case and relied on judgments from the High Court and the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account by the AO was not strictly warranted, and the estimation of additional income at 5% by the AO and 0.5% by the CIT(A) was unsustainable. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision in a similar group case, the Tribunal deleted all additions, stating there was no evidence of unaccounted income or cash transactions beyond the disclosed profits.