ITAT Patna Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal held that the books of accounts were wrongly rejected by the AO under Section 145(3) of the Act. The assessee had provided details of labour charges, wage expenses, and labour/wages payable at the year-end, including labour registers with details of persons engaged, attendances, and daily wages. The AO did not point out any specific defects in the books to justify their rejection. Consequently, the rejection of books of accounts was not sustained. Regarding the addition of Rs. 51,72,29,144, the Tribunal noted that substantial billing for contractual work was done in March, with labour charges booked accordingly and shown as payable. Payments for work done in the current financial year were received in the subsequent financial year, and outstanding labour charges were discharged then, as evidenced by subsequent year's details. The Tribunal found the addition unrealistic and devoid of basis, noting that sustaining it would lead to an astronomically high and unachievable GP rate of 41.69%. The Tribunal also observed that the audited books of accounts did not draw any adverse inference from the auditors. Therefore, the appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. The principle established is that rejection of books of accounts requires specific defects, and disallowances of expenses, particularly those related to contract work with subsequent year payments, should be supported by concrete evidence rather than assumptions leading to unrealistic profit margins.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not bad in law. Regarding the initiation of proceedings with duplicate show-cause notices, the Tribunal noted that the first page of the PCIT's order correctly referred to the assessment order under Section 143(3), and the mention of Section 147 was a typographical error. The Tribunal also found that the PCIT's conclusions were related to the assessee, and objections regarding unrelated transactions were not sustainable under Section 292B. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's findings on the re-examination of property investment (Ground No. 7) and the alleged unaccounted income from repairing activities (Ground No. 8), stating that the PCIT had correctly identified deficiencies in the AO's inquiry. Citing the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC), the Tribunal noted that the PCIT's powers under Section 263 are of wide amplitude and it is sufficient if the PCIT comes to a prima facie conclusion that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, without necessarily recording a final conclusion on merits. Therefore, while Grounds 7 and 8 were allowed, the rest of the grounds were dismissed, and the PCIT's order was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order after a significant gap following the last hearing, and that the assessment order was made under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had a duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order with reasons and findings, which was not done. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not make proper representation at either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) stage. Citing Ajji Basha Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is empowered to remand the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹92,66,803/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the AO had merely reduced the returned income from the total capital introduced, treating the difference as unexplained capital. However, the assessee had reconciled this amount. The Tribunal found that the capital introduced of ₹5.77 crore included the profit of ₹2.5452 crore from the previous year, capital introduced during the current year, and other sources like salary. The Tribunal observed that ₹2.5452 crore related to the profit of the previous year for which evidence was filed. The remaining amount of ₹3,30,54,327/- related to capital introduced on account of salary and other sources, and ₹1.88 crore was the profit of the current year. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded there was no justification for upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The addition of ₹92,66,803/- was directed to be deleted. Grounds 5 and 9 were allowed, and other grounds were not adjudicated separately as relief was granted on merits. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the service of notice u/s 143(2), finding the assessee's contentions to be incorrect based on the AO's records and the Inspector's report of affixing the notice. Consequently, the assessment was not considered void ab initio. Regarding the remand proceedings, the Tribunal found that the AO had merely reproduced the assessment order in the remand report without considering the documents submitted by the appellant during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the AO was directed to examine the submitted documents and provide an opportunity for hearing to the assessee. Additions were to be deleted if the documents were found in order. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the documents to be filed. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the service of notice u/s 143(2), finding the assessee's contentions to be incorrect based on the AO's records and the Inspector's report of affixing the notice. Consequently, the assessment was not considered void ab initio. Regarding the remand proceedings, the Tribunal found that the AO had merely reproduced the assessment order in the remand report without considering the documents submitted by the appellant during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the AO was directed to examine the submitted documents and provide an opportunity for hearing to the assessee. Additions were to be deleted if the documents were found in order. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the documents to be filed. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order after a significant gap following the last hearing, and that the assessment order was made under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had a duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order with reasons and findings, which was not done. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not make proper representation at either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) stage. Citing Ajji Basha Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is empowered to remand the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order after a significant gap following the last hearing, and that the assessment order was made under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had a duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order with reasons and findings, which was not done. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not make proper representation at either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) stage. Citing Ajji Basha Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is empowered to remand the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that considering the submissions made by the assessee and the facts of the case, it was inclined to restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to pass an order after hearing the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The reasoning was based on providing an opportunity to the assessee to present their case, thereby adhering to principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that where an application is rejected due to a procedural lapse by the assessee, and the revenue does not object, the matter should be remanded to provide a fair hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order after a significant gap following the last hearing, and that the assessment order was made under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had a duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order with reasons and findings, which was not done. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not make proper representation at either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) stage. Citing Ajji Basha Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is empowered to remand the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order after a significant gap following the last hearing, and that the assessment order was made under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had a duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order with reasons and findings, which was not done. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not make proper representation at either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) stage. Citing Ajji Basha Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is empowered to remand the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order was passed by the AO and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 104 days without any adjudication on the merits. Considering the facts, the assessee's prayer, and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned. The AO was directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order after a significant gap following the last hearing, and that the assessment order was made under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had a duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order with reasons and findings, which was not done. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not make proper representation at either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) stage. Citing Ajji Basha Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is empowered to remand the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order after a significant gap following the last hearing, and that the assessment order was made under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had a duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order with reasons and findings, which was not done. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not make proper representation at either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) stage. Citing Ajji Basha Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is empowered to remand the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided some information regarding the source of investments to the AO but failed to submit supporting documents. It was also observed that the AO did not conduct any inquiry or verification on the submissions made by the assessee. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify the year of execution of the sale deed. Considering these facts, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the impugned assessment and directed the AO to frame the assessment de novo after conducting necessary inquiry and verification. The assessee was directed to produce supporting documents and comply with the AO's notices. The issue of whether the additions and disallowance were justified was not decided on merits, but the case was remanded for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1131 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee in her affidavit. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the matter was decided against the assessee in an ex-parte manner. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment order and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to frame a fresh assessment as per law after affording necessary opportunity to the assessee to present her case. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessment is made ex-parte and the assessee demonstrates a genuine need for an opportunity to present their case, the appellate authorities should provide such an opportunity in the interest of justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the quantum appeal order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) concerning the quantum appeal and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the penalty order was also set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the quantum appeal order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) concerning the quantum appeal and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the penalty order was also set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 191 days in filing the appeal before it, considering the reasons provided. Regarding the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that the delay was indeed 27 days, not 2607 days as erroneously stated by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal condoned this 27-day delay, setting aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that procedural errors, such as miscalculation of delay, should not prevent an appeal from being heard on its merits, and appellate authorities have the discretion to condone reasonable delays to ensure justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file any explanation to the show cause notice issued by the AO. However, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did file certain details. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that primary documents to support the claim that bank account credits represented business receipts were not filed, and thus upheld the addition. The ITAT found that the assessee's claim that bank credits were business receipts and withdrawals related to business transactions had not been examined by the AO. Since the assessee also wanted to file supporting documents, the Tribunal considered it fit to set aside the impugned assessment and restore it to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. This would involve necessary verification and affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The issue of whether the addition was justified was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the statutory time period before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was condoned. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The issue regarding the denial of deduction under Section 80PA was not decided on merits by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had uploaded certain information and details for the AO's consideration. However, the AO observed that details were not furnished and proceeded to estimate income. The Tribunal found it apparent that the information and details of the assessee were not considered by either the AO or the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal considered it fit to set aside the impugned assessment and restore all issues to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to frame the assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that assessments made without considering the evidence and submissions furnished by the assessee are liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. The operative direction is to set aside the assessment order and restore the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 617 days in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided in the assessee's affidavit. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed ex-parte, and the assessee had not complied with the hearing notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) due to family disputes. Recognizing that the matter was adjudicated ex-parte at both levels, the Tribunal held that, to meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to defend its case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issues on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to comply with future hearing notices. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that both the order of the Assessing Officer and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) were ex-parte, with the assessee not participating in the proceedings. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The assessee was also directed to participate in the assessment proceedings without fail. No specific amount was in dispute, and the Tribunal did not decide any issue on merits, focusing on procedural fairness.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeals should be allowed. The reasoning was based on the order of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.215/PAT/2026, which had set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer and remanded the matter for de-novo assessment. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of this decision, the impugned penalty orders should also be set aside. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to pass penalty orders in accordance with law, consequent to the de-novo assessment, and the assessee was to be provided an opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that penalty proceedings are consequential to the quantum assessment, and if the quantum assessment is set aside for de-novo assessment, the penalty orders should also be revisited.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeals should be allowed. The reasoning was based on the order of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.215/PAT/2026, which had set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer and remanded the matter for de-novo assessment. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of this decision, the impugned penalty orders should also be set aside. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to pass penalty orders in accordance with law, consequent to the de-novo assessment, and the assessee was to be provided an opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that penalty proceedings are consequential to the quantum assessment, and if the quantum assessment is set aside for de-novo assessment, the penalty orders should also be revisited.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeals should be allowed. The reasoning was based on the order of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.215/PAT/2026, which had set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer and remanded the matter for de-novo assessment. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of this decision, the impugned penalty orders should also be set aside. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to pass penalty orders in accordance with law, consequent to the de-novo assessment, and the assessee was to be provided an opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that penalty proceedings are consequential to the quantum assessment, and if the quantum assessment is set aside for de-novo assessment, the penalty orders should also be revisited.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeals should be allowed. The reasoning was based on the order of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.215/PAT/2026, which had set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer and remanded the matter for de-novo assessment. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of this decision, the impugned penalty orders should also be set aside. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to pass penalty orders in accordance with law, consequent to the de-novo assessment, and the assessee was to be provided an opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that penalty proceedings are consequential to the quantum assessment, and if the quantum assessment is set aside for de-novo assessment, the penalty orders should also be revisited.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 187 and 156 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing a liberal approach to delay when supported by justifiable reasons for substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the quantum appeal order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the quantum appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the order upholding the penalty was also set aside and restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. The ratio is that an appellate authority must provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an order, and failure to do so warrants a remand.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 187 and 156 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing a liberal approach to delay when supported by justifiable reasons for substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the quantum appeal order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the quantum appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the order upholding the penalty was also set aside and restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. The ratio is that an appellate authority must provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an order, and failure to do so warrants a remand.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 279 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause, as laid down in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer's and the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, with no participation from the assessee. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated all grounds of appeal on merits. Considering that the assessee, in Ground No. 12, contended for restoration to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order, and the assessee was directed to participate in the proceedings without fail. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 279 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause, as laid down in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer's and the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, with no participation from the assessee. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated all grounds of appeal on merits. Considering that the assessee, in Ground No. 12, contended for restoration to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order, and the assessee was directed to participate in the proceedings without fail. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer's order and the Ld. CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte, with the assessee not participating in the proceedings. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to participate in the assessment proceedings without fail. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 886 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing a liberal approach for condonation when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, and the assessee had not participated in the proceedings, nor had all grounds of appeal been decided on merits. It was also observed that the assessee had not made full compliance before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. This was made subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order, and the assessee was directed to participate in the proceedings without fail. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 108 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal relied on the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. The ITAT found the assessee's reasons for delay to be bona fide and beyond her control. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was to be provided an opportunity of being heard before passing the de-novo assessment order. The issue of the merits of the assessment was not decided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The operative direction is to decide the appeal afresh on merits. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the substantive appeal was not decided on merits by the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the PAN AABCG 9672N, used by the AO to issue notices, pertained to the assessee, having been allotted on 30.09.2003 with registration number 03-6083, which was the same as for PAN AABCG 9810E allotted on 27.10.2003. The address associated with PAN AABCG 9672N was also found to be the assessee's address. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not intimated changes in name or address to the AO. Citing Supreme Court in PCIT v. I Venn Interactive Services Pvt Ltd and ITAT Kolkata in Tarasafe International P Ltd v. DCIT, the Tribunal upheld the validity of notices issued to the address available in the PAN database, thus upholding the AO's jurisdiction and the validity of the notices. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal observed that the AO decided the issue ex-parte, and the assessee failed to submit information on merit before the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered it fit to set aside the impugned assessments for both years and remit them to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with all information and evidence, allow an opportunity of hearing, and consider the returns filed under PAN AABCG 9810E. The AO was also directed to forward all relevant information to the AO having jurisdiction over PAN AABCG 9810E to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It noted that a search in the case of LRIPL revealed large-scale unaccounted cash sales, recorded in its IVMS software, and that the assessee was a party to substantial cash sales. Statements from LRIPL's director and general manager corroborated the modus operandi of sales suppression. The Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient basis to initiate proceedings under Section 147, as the case did not fall under the ambit of Section 153C since no documents or assets belonging to the assessee were seized. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with the material evidence and was not afforded an opportunity to rebut it, a plea raised before the Ld. CIT(A) but not specifically addressed. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity to rebut the material evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessments for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored them to the AO for de novo assessment, with directions to provide all materials/information/evidence/statements to the appellant and afford adequate opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It noted that a search in the case of LRIPL revealed large-scale unaccounted cash sales, recorded in its IVMS software, and that the assessee was a party to substantial cash sales. Statements from LRIPL's director and general manager corroborated the modus operandi of sales suppression. The Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient basis to initiate proceedings under Section 147, as the case did not fall under the ambit of Section 153C since no documents or assets belonging to the assessee were seized. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with the material evidence and was not afforded an opportunity to rebut it, a plea raised before the Ld. CIT(A) but not specifically addressed. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity to rebut the material evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessments for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored them to the AO for de novo assessment, with directions to provide all materials/information/evidence/statements to the appellant and afford adequate opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It noted that a search in the case of LRIPL revealed large-scale unaccounted cash sales, recorded in its IVMS software, and that the assessee was a party to substantial cash sales. Statements from LRIPL's director and general manager corroborated the modus operandi of sales suppression. The Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient basis to initiate proceedings under Section 147, as the case did not fall under the ambit of Section 153C since no documents or assets belonging to the assessee were seized. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with the material evidence and was not afforded an opportunity to rebut it, a plea raised before the Ld. CIT(A) but not specifically addressed. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity to rebut the material evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessments for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored them to the AO for de novo assessment, with directions to provide all materials/information/evidence/statements to the appellant and afford adequate opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It noted that a search in the case of LRIPL revealed large-scale unaccounted cash sales, recorded in its IVMS software, and that the assessee was a party to substantial cash sales. Statements from LRIPL's director and general manager corroborated the modus operandi of sales suppression. The Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient basis to initiate proceedings under Section 147, as the case did not fall under the ambit of Section 153C since no documents or assets belonging to the assessee were seized. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with the material evidence and was not afforded an opportunity to rebut it, a plea raised before the Ld. CIT(A) but not specifically addressed. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity to rebut the material evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessments for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored them to the AO for de novo assessment, with directions to provide all materials/information/evidence/statements to the appellant and afford adequate opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cases were completed ex-parte at both the assessment and first appellate levels. Considering the submissions of the assessee's counsel, the prayer for an additional opportunity, and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and decision. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case with cogent documents and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. A cost of Rs. 20,000/- for both years was imposed on the assessee for disrespecting Income Tax proceedings. The Tribunal cautioned that no further leniency would be granted if the assessee failed to comply. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the PAN AABCG 9672N, used by the AO to issue notices, pertained to the assessee, having been allotted on 30.09.2003 with registration number 03-6083, which was the same as for PAN AABCG 9810E allotted on 27.10.2003. The address associated with PAN AABCG 9672N was also found to be the assessee's address. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not intimated changes in name or address to the AO. Citing Supreme Court in PCIT v. I Venn Interactive Services Pvt Ltd and ITAT Kolkata in Tarasafe International P Ltd v. DCIT, the Tribunal upheld the validity of notices issued to the address available in the PAN database, thus upholding the AO's jurisdiction and the validity of the notices. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal observed that the AO decided the issue ex-parte, and the assessee failed to submit information on merit before the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered it fit to set aside the impugned assessments for both years and remit them to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with all information and evidence, allow an opportunity of hearing, and consider the returns filed under PAN AABCG 9810E. The AO was also directed to forward all relevant information to the AO having jurisdiction over PAN AABCG 9810E to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal considered the specific case of the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) had served notice on a wrong email ID and that the impugned order was passed without proper service of notice. Taking these facts and circumstances into account, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a specific direction to serve notice to the registered email ID of the assessee, which was stated as ashutoshshah.patliputra@gmail.com. The Ld. CIT(A) was further directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The ratio of the decision is that an ex-parte order passed without proper service of notice, violating principles of natural justice, warrants setting aside and remand for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed expenses of Rs. 25,35,724/- on account of discount allowed to various parties. The assessee was asked to furnish party-wise details with supporting documents, but failed to do so. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee produced only a self-prepared statement and no supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to produce the necessary documents supporting the claim of discount expenses. The Assessing Officer is further directed to consider these documents and any submissions made by the assessee, and pass a de-novo assessment in accordance with the law, providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The issue of whether the Ld. CIT(A) violated natural justice by passing an ex-parte order was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cases were completed ex-parte at both the assessment and first appellate levels. Considering the submissions of the assessee's counsel, the prayer for an additional opportunity, and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and decision. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case with cogent documents and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. A cost of Rs. 20,000/- for both years was imposed on the assessee for disrespecting Income Tax proceedings. The Tribunal cautioned that no further leniency would be granted if the assessee failed to comply. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient justification for treating 50% of the intercepted cash as unexplained, especially when the assessee's cash book showed ₹22,59,080/- in hand on 09.10.2023. The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) pointed out specific entries in the cash book prior to 09.10.2023 that were unacceptable. The rejection of books under Section 145(3) due to partial suppression of turnover does not automatically mean all book cash is unexplained. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order upholding 50% of the intercepted cash was not a speaking and reasoned order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant an opportunity to the assessee to produce the cash book and to the AO to examine it, and then give a specific finding regarding the unexplained cash out of that recorded in the books as on 09.10.2023. The addition of ₹94,452/- as undisclosed business income was accepted as it was admitted by the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was made due to the assessee's failure to furnish required documentary evidence before the AO and CIT(A). Considering the interest of justice and fair play, the Bench decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO, remanding the matter back to the AO for assessment de novo. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make further submissions and was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the NFAC's order was passed ex parte because the assessee made no compliance and failed to respond to notices. The Tribunal also observed that the NFAC's order was passed without addressing the merits of the case, which is contrary to the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire issue back to the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to re-examine the issues on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant details or documents. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee must cooperate and make due compliance during the remand proceedings. However, the assessee, even before the ITAT, did not produce anything and disrespected the proceedings. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was reopened under Section 147/148 for assessing escaped income. A notice was issued on March 27, 2021, and the assessee filed the return on May 26, 2021, which was beyond the 30-day period granted. Consequently, the AO was not bound to provide all information as argued by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee raised a legal issue for the first time before the ITAT, having not represented their case before the Ld. CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. Considering the rival submissions, the prayer of the assessee's counsel, the facts, and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and decision. The assessee was directed to submit supporting documents and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The case was partly allowed for statistical purposes.