ITAT Patna Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and evidence to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, lacking application of mind, and issued in a single order for multiple assessment years. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal found this approval to be invalid and unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if it is based purely on estimation, especially when substantial relief was granted in the quantum appeal. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including decisions from the Delhi High Court and a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, which held that estimated rates of profit do not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted by the JCIT under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering it invalid. Relying on High Court decisions upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal quashed the mechanical approval and all consequential assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based solely on estimation by the Assessing Officer, especially when the CIT(A) had also reduced the estimate and granted relief, cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on High Court and Tribunal precedents stating that penalty on estimated profit is not valid.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without application of mind, as a consolidated approval was given for multiple assessment years in a single order. This renders the approval invalid and consequently quashes the assessment order passed based on it. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) based on estimation by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained, especially when the additions were made on an estimated basis and the CIT(Appeals) had already granted substantial relief. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents which held that penalty on estimation is not sustainable.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but found that the CIT(A) failed to specify the points of determination and provide reasons for the decision, as mandated by Section 250(6). In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment, with directions for the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and for the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons genuine and bonafide. It held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, which dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's reply and without providing sufficient opportunity, violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illness and lack of awareness of the hearing date before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, remitting the matter back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations and documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposits during demonetization and the genuineness of sundry creditors, despite repeated opportunities. The CIT(Appeals) had already upheld the AO's order.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, especially when the delay was not intentional and there was a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not adjudicated two specific grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, despite referring them to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance of agricultural income is not legally valid given the assessee possesses 15 acres of agricultural land. It was considered reasonable to disallow 10% of the claimed agricultural income, considering the earlier years' income and the lack of documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that some documents and an additional ground of appeal were filed for the first time and had not been considered by the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering these new submissions.

The Tribunal found that some documents submitted by the assessee were not considered by the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the newly submitted documents and the original grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal noted that some documents were filed for the first time before it and had not been considered by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, considering the new documents and grounds.

The Tribunal noted that some documents were filed for the first time before it and were not considered by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to him to consider these documents and readjudicate the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly examining the materials or affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that some documents were filed for the first time before the Tribunal and were not considered by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the appeals back to him for fresh adjudication, considering the newly filed documents and additional grounds. Consequently, all appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper examination of records and without affording an effective opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not provided detailed reasons for confirming the addition and had not given proper opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that some documents were filed for the first time before it and were not considered by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the newly filed documents and grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by the CIT(A) and remanded for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty became premature and unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without examining the merits. Considering principles of natural justice and the assessee being a rural bank, the Tribunal decided to provide one final opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 492 days considering the circumstances presented. It was found that the assessee had non-compliance issues before the lower authorities. However, for the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals).

The ITAT condoned the delay of 336 days, recognizing that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time due to circumstances beyond their control. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that a transfer between NRO and NRE accounts of the same assessee does not result in escapement of income. The AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were found to be invalid, especially since the Form 15CA was filed inadvertently on bank advice.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was defective as it was issued on April 1, 2021, instead of March 31, 2021, which was beyond the statutory time limit. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that such defects invalidate the reassessment proceedings.

The tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish necessary evidence for the expenses claimed under Section 57. However, considering the interest of justice and fair play, the tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence.

The tribunal observed that the appeal was time-barred by 45 days, but condoned the delay after considering the assessee's petition and the circumstances. The tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits, solely based on the assessee's participation in the DTVSVS 2024 Scheme. To ensure natural justice, the tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the 82-day delay in filing the appeal, citing principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide afresh on merit, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed without any response from the assessee, and the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order on the same ground. Considering the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present their case and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal inclined to restore the appeal to the AO.

The Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income at Rs. 44,96,900 under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the IT Act. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the AO's order due to the failure to produce documentary evidence. The ITAT, considering the totality of facts, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal. While the assessee did not appear, the Tribunal considered the submissions of the Departmental Representative and the material on record. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 68 days due to the advocate's illness. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present all necessary documents.

The ITAT noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and had not provided documentary evidence earlier. However, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding the reasons genuine and sufficient. It restored all appeals to the file of the Ld. AO, directing him to decide them on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also directed to make necessary compliance.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was concurrently directed to ensure necessary compliance before the AO to facilitate a seamless decision-making process.

The Tribunal condoned the 269-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason genuine and unopposed by the Revenue. In the interest of justice, and noting the non-compliance at lower stages, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to present all documentary evidence and the AO to pass a fresh order after hearing.

The Tribunal observed the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte. After reviewing the assessee's affidavit, which explained non-compliance due to illness and administrative issues and included an undertaking for future cooperation, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to hear the assessee and pass a fresh order, with the assessee mandated to cooperate.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO), directing the AO to decide them afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also concurrently directed to ensure necessary compliance before the AO to facilitate a seamless decision on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material was found during the search related to the disclosed income, and the income was voluntarily declared in the return filed under Section 153A and accepted by the AO. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) when income is voluntarily declared without any incriminating evidence being discovered during a search. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty.

The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order upholding the AO's addition because the assessee failed to comply with notices. The assessee's representative submitted that they could not appear due to difficulties and requested another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the 242-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's reason as genuine and bonafide. It observed that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after giving the assessee an opportunity to furnish all documentary evidence.