ITAT Patna Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence submitted by the assessee and passed the order without applying his mind. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of retracted statements, without corroborative incriminating material, are not sustainable, especially in unabated assessments. The AO lacked jurisdiction to make such additions.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of retracted statements, without corroborative incriminating material, are not sustainable, especially in unabated assessments. The AO lacked jurisdiction to make such additions.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of retracted statements, without corroborative incriminating material, are not sustainable, especially in unabated assessments. The AO lacked jurisdiction to make such additions.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Learned CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all the necessary evidence for the purchases, including invoices, payment details, and other supporting documents. The AO's addition was based solely on the fact that the suppliers were non-filers and had not responded to section 133(6) notices. The Tribunal noted that the Learned CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO, but the AO failed to submit it. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had produced GST returns filed by the suppliers, which were auto-populated from the website. The Tribunal agreed with the Learned CIT(A)'s reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, which held that mere non-filing of returns by suppliers does not automatically render purchases bogus, especially when the assessee has provided complete documentation and payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the AO relied solely on an investigation report without conducting independent inquiry or pointing out discrepancies in the assessee's evidence. The tribunal noted that SEBI's investigation did not name the assessee or the company involved, and the alleged rigging period did not align with the assessee's transaction dates.

As per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal unless specific exceptions apply. In this case, no exceptions were met, rendering the appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to issues with the e-filing portal and festivals. Considering that the assessee had not been able to file evidence before the AO and had now provided additional evidence, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not submitted documentary evidence before the AO and the CIT(A). However, additional evidence was filed before the Tribunal. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a decision on merit after providing an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have evidence for the departmental work and set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo reassessment, providing the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have evidence for the departmental work and set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo reassessment, providing the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present their case.

The Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits as unexplained income under section 69A and made additions. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order and remanded it for fresh assessment due to lack of evidence, and found no infirmity in this action.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte without considering the merits due to non-compliance. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was contrary to law and in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination with an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits and did not ascertain the advance tax liability. Given the facts and the cancellation of the development agreement, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

The Tribunal considered the GP rates of the earlier four years (average around 26%) and the current year's GP rate (28.34%). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to determine the GP rate at 30% for the stock shortage addition.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed ex parte and the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits of the case, violating the principles of natural justice and the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons plausible. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal, payable to the Bihar State Legal Aid Services Authority.

The Adjudicating Authority condoned the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal after finding the reasons plausible. However, during the hearing, the Id. AR's appearance was not in uniform, leading the tribunal to not hear the AR. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Id. Addl/JCIT(A) as the assessee failed to dislodge the findings of fact.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons plausible. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal, payable to the Bihar State Legal Aid Services Authority.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons plausible. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal, payable to the Bihar State Legal Aid Services Authority.

The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal and upholding the AO's order. The assessee contended that proper notices were not served due to technical glitches and reliance on counsel, leading to a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal found that there was no proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A) and allowed the assessee's request to set aside the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons plausible. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal, payable to the Bihar State Legal Aid Services Authority.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons plausible. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal, payable to the Bihar State Legal Aid Services Authority.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the CIT(A) granted partial relief. The assessee claimed the remaining amount was accounted for but could not be properly demonstrated. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue of the addition of ₹33,02,664 back to the AO for de novo verification.

The Tribunal noted the non-compliance by the assessee and the failure to produce evidence. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, with liberty granted to draw adverse inference if the assessee fails to appear in two hearings.

The Tribunal noted the non-compliance by the assessee and the failure to produce evidence. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that proper representation was not made by the assessee at both the AO and CIT(A) stages. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present her case.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, with liberty granted to draw adverse inference if the assessee fails to appear in two hearings.