ITAT Patna Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation about being disturbed and not being well-versed with tax procedures. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that for accounting charges, no TDS liability arose as the payments to each accountant did not exceed the specified threshold. Regarding freight charges, while the aggregate payments to transporters exceeded the limit, the proviso to Section 194C(5) and sub-section (6) were considered, along with the timing of an amendment to the law, suggesting no TDS liability arose if declarations were furnished by contractors owning ten or fewer vehicles. The reassessment proceedings were deemed valid despite initial notice service issues, as the notice was issued within the extended limitation period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and confirmed it.

The Tribunal noted that there was no proper representation before the AO and CIT(A) and the assessee lacked computer knowledge, leading to unawareness of the order. The Tribunal considered the cash deposits to be out of business receipts and also noted challenges to the proceedings initiated u/s 148. It was of the view that another opportunity should be provided as the delay ought to have been condoned.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO when additional evidence was submitted. Since this was not done and no analysis was carried out by the CIT(A), the order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that crucial facts regarding the assessee operating as an SBI CSP were not examined by the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal noted that the key issue was whether the relationship between Mentors Eduserv and the assessee was a 'contract of service' (salaried) or 'contract for service' (professional). After reviewing various judgments and the service agreement, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had conclusively established a master-servant relationship.

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) conclusively established a master-servant relationship. The Tribunal referred to various case laws to differentiate between a 'contract for service' and 'contract of service'. The Tribunal found that the agreements and terms did not definitively prove an employer-employee relationship.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the cost of acquisition based on the MVR rate obtained from the government portal. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the cost of acquisition as per the rates specified in the document filed by the assessee, subject to verification of its veracity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the assessee had not provided proper submissions or evidence before the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to the AO and that the CIT(A) also lacked proper representation. The Tribunal found that the assessee should have been given a fair opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits, especially since a major part was treated as business receipts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a reasonable cause, finding that the assessee was residing in Sitamarhi while notices were served at a Patna address. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not allowed the indexed cost of acquisition for capital gains, which is contrary to law. Hence, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing. However, after hearing the Department Representative, it was found that the assessee claimed to have submitted all required documents. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) for re-examination.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and acknowledged the settled legal position that an appeal against an order passed under Section 264 of the Act is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Therefore, the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal was accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and called for a remand report from the AO. However, the AO merely reiterated the assessment order without commenting on the merits of the additional evidence. The Tribunal observed that TDS was duly deducted on the payments and that the assessee provided necessary documentation, including agreements and bank statements, to support the expenditure. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay, despite the assessee claiming there was no such delay. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 283 days considering the assessee was prevented in filing the appeals within the stipulated time due to mental illness. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide one more opportunity for hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 215 days, finding the reasons sufficient and reasonable. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, recognizing the assessee was prevented from filing on time due to illness. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeals without considering them on merits, confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer solely due to non-appearance and delay. To ensure the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 405 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's medical condition. However, it was noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(Appeals) and failed to provide necessary documents, leading to ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits and without providing proper opportunity. To meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, solely based on the assessee's non-compliance. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 283 days due to the assessee's mental illness, recognizing that they were prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 283 days, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals ex-parte without discussing merits.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 7 days. The assessee provided an explanation for the delay, stating it was due to a technical issue with the order from NFAC and the subsequent rectifications required. The Tribunal condoned the delay based on the explanation and the principle of liberal approach in such cases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing previous judgments. However, it noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was regarding the claim for deduction of long-term capital gain u/s 54B and the exemption of compensation received under the RFCTLARR Act. The assessee failed to produce required documents to substantiate their claim, and it was unclear if the compensation was received under the RFCTLARR Act and if it was agricultural land. The Tribunal found the assessee's case was not squarely covered by the relevant CBDT circular.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made an addition under section 69A without giving proportionate benefit on the turnover shown by the assessee for the net profit included in these cash deposits. The Tribunal also observed that the AO did not follow the standard operating procedures laid down by the CBDT for examining cash deposits during the demonetization period. Citing a coordinate bench's judgment, the Tribunal held that the issue should be remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) accepted additional evidence from the assessee without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. The Tribunal also observed that the bank certificate was without a stamp, and the veracity of the documents needed examination. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was completed due to non-cooperation and the appeal to CIT(A) was filed with a significant delay which was not condoned. Considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for a de novo decision, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, relying on judgments that establish a 'reasonable cause' for delay. While agreeing that income tax should be charged on net income, the Tribunal noted that the source of cash deposits was not adequately explained by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after noting the assessee's explanation regarding the Chartered Accountant's medical condition. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' for the delay. After considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was liable for TDS on freight charges and that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interest by not adhering to the TDS provisions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the difference in receipts despite opportunities. However, it was unclear if the AO's estimation included GST. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO to calculate gross profit excluding GST on the suppressed turnover.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted another opportunity to contest the matter on merits. For the penalty appeal, since the assessment order was set aside, the penalty proceedings had no independent standing.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits and that an appellate authority must dispose of appeals on merits even in cases of non-compliance. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of delay, without considering the merits. For the penalty appeal, it was held that if the quantum assessment order is set aside, the penalty proceedings cannot survive independently.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of alleged cash deposits in an SBI bank account. The assessee provided an official certificate confirming no such bank account existed. This crucial factual aspect was not examined by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits, which was not justified.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte due to non-compliance, without adjudicating the issues on merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of appeals on merits, even in the absence of the assessee, and considering the interest of justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of three days for both appeals. It was held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and to produce documents before the CIT(E). Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Rs. 5,50,000 was transferred via NEFT from the father's bank account, which was itself funded by the sale of agricultural land for Rs. 15,00,000. The Tribunal found that the source of the funds was explained and thus the addition under Section 69A was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided an official certificate from SBI confirming no such bank account existed, a crucial fact not examined by the lower authorities. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on delay without adjudicating on merits was deemed unjustified, especially when the basis of reopening was factually disputed.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute pertained to delayed deposit of PF/ESI contributions. For some amounts, the addition was sustained as it was a reporting error on the portal. However, for arrears of salary, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination of the due date for payment, considering the actual date of payment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 590 days in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits, depriving the assessee of a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal considered that the assessment order was passed by the NFAC on March 24, 2022, which was before the notification date of March 29, 2022, making the NFAC operational. Therefore, the NFAC lacked jurisdiction to pass the assessment order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the rival submissions and the assessee's inability to produce documents before the CIT(E), the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had not examined the issue in light of CBDT instructions regarding cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee claimed the deposits were from turnover and cited that they are not required to maintain detailed books of account under section 44AA, having filed under section 44AD.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits and without providing an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.