ITAT Patna Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted multiple opportunities to the assessee to provide documentation, which the assessee failed to do. However, considering the principle of natural justice and an undertaking by the assessee's counsel to cooperate, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back for a fresh hearing, providing one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the illness of the accountant constituted a reasonable cause. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the assessee which went unanswered, leading to the confirmation of the AO's addition. However, to provide an opportunity for natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee to substantiate their claim with evidence, which the assessee failed to do. However, the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without considering the merits. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without proper deliberation on merits and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The case was remitted back to the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee to substantiate their claim, but the assessee failed to do so. However, to meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without giving adequate opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided four opportunities for the assessee to substantiate their claim, but the assessee failed to respond. However, the Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without considering the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had provided the assessee with multiple opportunities to present evidence and submissions, but the assessee failed to respond adequately. Despite this, the Tribunal, to meet the principles of natural justice, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate in the future.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee to present evidence, but the assessee failed to do so. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause due to the assessee being a senior citizen and not conversant with the online system. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 301 days, finding reasonable cause for the late filing. The Tribunal acknowledged the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the incorrect computation of capital gains. To meet the principle of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,52,82,071/- under Section 40A(3) and the addition on account of capital employed. The Tribunal found that estimating net profit on turnover covered all expenses, and applying Section 40A(3) would lead to double taxation. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and in dismissing it for non-prosecution without a speaking order. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents stating that the appellate authority must pass a reasoned order on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex parte. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without examining the merits. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance. However, the CIT(A) is required to decide appeals on merits even in ex-parte circumstances. The Tribunal found that this was not done.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was duty-bound to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits, even in case of non-appearance by the assessee. Dismissing the appeal ex parte without examining the issues is contrary to law.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte and without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits, even in case of non-appearance by the assessee. Dismissing an appeal ex parte without examining the issues on merits is contrary to law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the appeal on merits and instead remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer. The first appellate authority is duty-bound to decide issues on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, but rather dismissed it due to non-compliance, which is not permissible. The CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order with reasons, as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits, which is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte without adjudicating the merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity to represent the case before the first appellate authority.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and dismissed for non-prosecution without proper examination of the issues. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are corollary to assessment proceedings. Since the assessment order, which is the foundation for the penalty, has been set aside, the penalty orders cannot survive and are liable to be quashed.

The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground, stating that the assessee had selected 'No' for additional evidence and thus could not submit further documents, without granting an opportunity to rectify the same. The Tribunal found this dismissal to be against the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are corollary to assessment proceedings. Since the assessment order, which was the foundation for the penalty, had already been set aside by the Tribunal in a previous order, the penalty orders could not survive and were liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 270 days due to the death of the representative and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide necessary documents to the AO and CIT(A), but in the interest of natural justice and upon the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without granting sufficient time to respond to the show-cause notices, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the department took a significant time to issue notices for additional documents while allowing very short response periods to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument regarding insufficient time to respond and the similarity to a previous case where an opportunity was granted. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that proper representation was not made by the assessee at the assessment and CIT(A) stages due to lack of communication and missed deadlines. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to provide another opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's representation was inadequate at both the assessment and CIT(A) stages due to communication issues. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO.

The Tribunal found that proper representation was not made by the assessee at the assessment and appellate stages. Considering the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to provide another opportunity to the assessee to represent their case before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that there was no proper compliance before the lower authorities and, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for reassessment de novo, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice and based on the AR's request, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The issues in appeal were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard, and the assessee is directed to cooperate positively.

The Tribunal observed the conduct of the assessee's AR during the virtual hearing, noting a lack of adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures. Based on this conduct and without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, held that since substantive addition was made in the hands of the husband and the assessee had her own income and assets, the protective addition in her hands was not justified. The protective assessment was quashed.

The assessee's representative appeared through virtual court but was not in uniform as per SOP and was observed chewing tobacco/pan. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's AR appeared in virtual court not in uniform and was chewing tobacco/pan, which was against the SOP. Due to these circumstances, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already deemed the penalty proceedings infructuous and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty. Since the penalty order no longer survives, the appeal filed by the assessee has become infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate claims before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present evidence before the AO. The issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed the conduct of the assessee's AR during the virtual court appearance and found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. The stay granted against the outstanding demand was directed to be vacated.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notices issued under section 148 while the assessee was in jail was not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the issue of the validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Act during the assessee's incarceration was not previously adjudicated. Therefore, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of invalid notices due to the assessee being in jail was not argued before the CIT(A) or lower authorities and the facts were not emanating from their orders. Therefore, the Tribunal decided that the issue needed to be adjudicated first by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the validity of notices issued while the assessee was incarcerated was not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notices issued during the assessee's incarceration was not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of the validity of notices issued under Section 148 during the assessee's incarceration had not been adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of the validity of notices issued under Section 148 while the assessee was in jail was not argued before the CIT(A) or lower authorities. Therefore, to ensure justice and provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.