ITAT Panaji Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 423 days in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's affidavit and the lack of evidence from the revenue suggesting deliberate delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. Following the precedents set by the ITAT, "Division Bench", Raipur in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT and Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), and this Bench in Amit Singh Thakur Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the file of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction that this is the final opportunity for the assessee to comply and represent the matter. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 423 days in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's affidavit and the lack of evidence from the revenue suggesting deliberate delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. Following the precedents set by the ITAT, "Division Bench", Raipur in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT and Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), and this Bench in Amit Singh Thakur Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the file of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction that this is the final opportunity for the assessee to comply and represent the matter. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 423 days in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's affidavit and the lack of evidence from the revenue suggesting deliberate delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. Following the precedents set by the ITAT, "Division Bench", Raipur in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT and Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), and this Bench in Amit Singh Thakur Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the file of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction that this is the final opportunity for the assessee to comply and represent the matter. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to hear the appeal on merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had passed a resolution specifying the purpose of accumulation for educational activities and had initiated steps for construction of an educational institution.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of excess stock represented undisclosed business income and not an unexplained investment. Therefore, Section 115BBE was not applicable, and the income should be taxed at normal rates.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 153A for AY 2008-09, as it fell outside the permissible ten-year window from the search date. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 153A for AY 2008-09, as it fell outside the permissible ten-year window from the search date. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the cash deposits represented business receipts that should be taxed under Section 44AD. However, the claim that another portion was a re-deposit of earlier withdrawals was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was incorrect due to improper application of Rule 8D and the prospective nature of its amendment. Additions under Section 41(1) were deleted as the amounts were subsequently paid or written off. Depreciation on mine sheds was allowed as they were temporary structures.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the seized cash (Rs. 48,54,510/-) was unexplained and taxable under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. However, the estimated profit on unaccounted sales was considered part of business income and not subject to Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was incorrect due to improper application of Rule 8D and the prospective nature of its amendment. Additions under Section 41(1) were deleted as the amounts were subsequently paid or written off. Depreciation on mine sheds was allowed as they were temporary structures.

The Tribunal found that the absence of weighment slips and stock registers, coupled with the assessee's admission of not maintaining them, cast doubt on the genuineness of purchases. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish weighment slips.

The Tribunal found that the absence of weighment slips and stock registers, coupled with the assessee's admission of not maintaining them, cast doubt on the genuineness of purchases. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish weighment slips.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in estimating profit at 5% on sales to the sister concern, as the sister concern had already offered 15% profit on the same transaction. Taxing both at 15% would result in an unreasonable 30% profit for the group.

The Tribunal allowed a further relief of Rs. 2,84,000/- to the assessee, considering the sale of gold by the assessee's mother-in-law. Other grounds regarding cash memos were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred as it was issued beyond the surviving period of limitation calculated as per the Supreme Court's decision. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was void ab initio due to the insufficient response time provided. Consequently, the reassessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's ignorance of tax proceedings. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for detailed verification of the sale of agricultural land as claimed by the assessee.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 159 days, citing judicial pronouncements that appellate authorities should not dismiss appeals solely on grounds of delay without considering merits. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, following precedent, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given one final opportunity to present reasons for the delay. The matter was remanded back to the First Appellate Authority for adjudication on the delay and then on merits if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's ignorance of tax proceedings. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for detailed verification of the sale of agricultural land as claimed by the assessee.