ITAT Patna Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal observed that the impugned issues pertained to fact-finding, and the documents presented before the CIT(A) were not fully considered on their merit by the AO during the remand report preparation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh assessment, noting that ex-parte orders were passed by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim agricultural income in his personal capacity and proportionately with family members, directing the AO to examine revenue records and allow the claim. The initial rejection of agricultural income was based on a misunderstanding of land ownership.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the limb of section 270A(9) under which the case fell and did not issue a separate order for the immunity application within the prescribed time. The penalty was considered not imposable as it was a case of underreporting, not misreporting.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment and the appellate orders were passed ex parte. Considering the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Tribunal found this unjustified and appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and verified the tax effect. It was found that the total tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 55,56,720/-, which is below the monetary limit set by the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The addition appeared to overlap with the disclosed income, requiring verification. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording an opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to consider the assessee's application for condonation of delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders, denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee's application for immunity under Section 270AA was not properly considered.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee's ill health, which was beyond their control. Technical lapses should not override substantive justice, and the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without a detailed adjudication on merits. The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted a delay of 95 days in filing the appeals but condoned it due to reasonable cause. Since the assessee failed to appear on multiple occasions, leading to dismissal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, the Tribunal granted another opportunity. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14, remanding the matter back for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The other connected appeals were also remanded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for re-examination after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, considering the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that there was a delay in filing the appeals, but condoned it due to reasonable cause. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had invalidly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction. The AO had indeed conducted inquiry, gathered evidence, and applied his mind to the issue before framing the assessment. The PCIT's disagreement with the AO's view, in a case where two views are possible, does not grant jurisdiction for revision.

The Tribunal observed that the rejection was primarily due to partial non-compliance. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claims by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal observed that the rejection was mainly due to partial non-compliance with queries. To meet the ends of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had invalidly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction. The AO had conducted sufficient inquiry and examined the evidences related to the share transactions. If the PCIT disagrees with the AO's possible view, it does not automatically grant jurisdiction for revision.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's conclusion that no inquiry was conducted was contrary to the facts available in the assessment records. The Tribunal found that the AO had called for information and evidences regarding the share transactions and had examined them. Therefore, the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was invalidly invoked.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's conclusion of no inquiry was contrary to the facts. Evidence showed that the AO had called for and examined the documents related to share transactions. The Tribunal also noted that if the AO takes a possible view, the PCIT cannot substitute his own view under section 263.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that an incomplete copy of the assessment order was filed and decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order to be adjudicated afresh after the assessee files the complete details of both appeals. The assessee is at liberty to raise all legal issues, and the AO and CIT(A) shall grant adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex parte orders due to non-compliance by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re-examination after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D for multiple assessment years without proper application of mind was invalid, rendering the assessments based on such approvals unsustainable. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, it was emphasized that approval must be granted for 'each assessment year' separately with due application of mind. Consequently, the assessments challenged on the ground of invalid 153D approval were quashed, and specific additions relating to agricultural income and unrecorded cash receipts were directed to be deleted due to lack of consistency and proper evidence.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be granted for each assessment year separately and with due application of mind. Granting a consolidated approval for multiple years without independent verification was deemed invalid and mechanical. Consequently, the assessment orders based on such approvals were vitiated.

The Tribunal found that the consolidated approval under Section 153D for multiple assessment years was mechanical, without proper application of mind, and thus invalidated the assessments framed under Section 153A. Consequently, the addition of unexplained agricultural income for Saroj Bala was deleted, and the addition of cash receipt for Lovely Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. was also deleted as the seized documents were not confronted to the assessee and lacked clear evidence.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D for multiple assessment years, without proper application of mind, is invalid. This mechanical approval vitiates the assessment proceedings. The requirement is for separate approval for each assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte without providing opportunities to the assessee and had confirmed additions made by the AO due to non-compliance and non-appearance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh opportunity to the assessee, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D of the Act requires the approving authority to apply independent mind to the material on record for each assessment year separately. Granting approval in a mechanical manner without application of mind defeats the purpose of the safeguard provided in the Act. Therefore, a mechanical approval is invalid, and any assessment order based on such approval cannot be sustained. The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions to support this.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D for multiple assessment years without proper application of mind was invalid. This invalid approval vitiated the assessment orders passed.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D for multiple assessment years was invalid as it lacked due application of mind. The approval must be specific to each assessment year and demonstrate independent scrutiny. Therefore, the assessment orders based on such invalid approvals were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approvals granted by the JCIT under Section 153D for multiple assessment years were mechanical and lacked independent application of mind, rendering the consequent assessments invalid. It directed the deletion of the addition for agricultural income in Saroj Bala's case, citing the rule of consistency as similar income was accepted in previous years. For Lovely Rani Construction, the Tribunal ruled that the addition for cash receipts from Smt. Anusuya Singh, based on un-confronted and unreliable seized documents, could not be sustained and ordered its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D of the Act requires the approving authority to apply an independent mind for each assessment year separately. Granting a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without proper application of mind is invalid and vitiates the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal ruled that the consolidated approval granted by the JCIT u/s 153D was invalid because it lacked independent application of mind for each assessment year, which is a mandatory safeguard. Consequently, all assessment orders based on such mechanical approvals were quashed. Specifically, the addition of agricultural income for Saroj Bala was deleted due to consistency with earlier years' acceptance, and the addition for cash receipts for Lovely Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. was deleted as the seized document was not confronted and lacked evidentiary value for the addition.

The Tribunal ruled that the mechanical, consolidated approval under Section 153D, without a separate application of mind for each assessment year, was invalid, thereby vitiating the assessments based on it. It emphasized that Section 153D mandates approval for "each assessment year." The Tribunal also deleted additions for agricultural income based on consistency and set aside unexplained money additions due to non-confrontation of seized documents and lack of corroboration.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders must be obtained for each assessment year separately and with due application of mind. A mechanical, consolidated approval for multiple years vitiates the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be granted for each assessment year separately and with due application of mind. A mechanical or consolidated approval for multiple years was considered invalid. Consequently, assessment orders based on such invalid approvals were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted by the JCIT for multiple assessment years, without proper application of mind and for each year separately as mandated by law, is invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders based on such invalid approval are also vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under section 153D of the Act was mechanical and granted without proper application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years. This invalidates the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that a consolidated approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D for multiple assessment years without individual application of mind for each year and assessee is mechanical, invalid, and vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, all assessments based on such approvals were quashed. Regarding specific additions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the agricultural income addition for Saroj Bala due to inconsistency with prior assessment years, and deleted the addition for cash receipts for Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., as the seized documents were not confronted to the assessee and lacked clear connection to the alleged receipts.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D for multiple assessment years was invalid, mechanical, and without proper application of mind, citing various High Court decisions and an affirmation by the Supreme Court. Consequently, all assessments based on such invalid approval were quashed. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for agricultural income, applying the rule of consistency, and set aside the addition related to cash receipts from Smt. Anusuya Singh, finding the underlying seized document unreliable and not confronted to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of ₹32,73,262/- (purchases) and remanded the issue to CIT(A) for re-verification, noting the assessee's argument that non-filing alone shouldn't lead to disallowance and that payments were made. For the addition of ₹10,00,479/- (sub-contract expenses related to Sri Krishnadev Pandit), the issue was also remanded for verification of the work done and agreement. Ground nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The CIT(A) held that the CPC acted within its jurisdiction under Sections 143(1) and 154, deeming the revised Form 3CD inadmissible as evidence, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal also decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO and remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh reassessment (de novo) to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.