ITAT Rajkot Judgments — January 2026

The tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in responding to notices and pursuing the case before lower authorities. It directed the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Prime Minister Relief Fund and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal condoned the 427-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. However, noting the assessee's non-cooperative attitude and negligence in responding to notices from lower authorities, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 1000 to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed made prior cash withdrawals and there was no evidence of their utilization elsewhere. However, considering some self-serving documents, the Tribunal directed an ad-hoc addition of 10% of the deposited amount (Rs. 3,10,000) as undisclosed income, to be taxed at normal rates, not under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in getting the accounts audited and filing the report, as the assessee's father, who handled the accounts, was ill and subsequently died. Since the audit report was submitted before the assessment was finalized and the returned income was accepted without variation, there was no revenue loss, making the default technical and venial. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in not complying with notices from the lower authorities. It directed the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 10 days and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the case to the AO. It held that the AO should provide the assessee an opportunity to produce relevant documents and examine if the finance company had included the interest amount in its return, considering the retrospective nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable in law, citing various High Court and ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly rejected the books of accounts and estimated profits on a reasonable basis.

The Tribunal condoned the 100-day delay, finding it bona fide and due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. It then set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, as the Ld. CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeal based on an incorrect assumption about the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the amendment disallowing set-off of losses against income under Section 68 is effective from April 1, 2017, and thus not applicable to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee is eligible for set-off of business losses against the income derived from off-market transactions.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order violated principles of natural justice by not allowing the assessee to comment on the remand report. The case was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing details of the transaction, including banking channels and affidavits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing details of the transaction, including banking channels and affidavits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that issuing notices and passing an assessment order in the name of a deceased person is a fundamental jurisdictional defect and renders the entire assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case on similar facts.

The ITAT noted the assessee's negligent behavior but, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that a satisfactory relief had already been granted by the CIT(A). However, considering the circumstances, it directed the Assessing Officer to sustain an addition of 10% of the remaining Rs. 6,10,424, which amounts to Rs. 61,042, and to tax this amount at normal rates, not under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence and correct minor errors in the declarations. The CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence and correct minor errors in the declarations. The CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was a summary dismissal without a reasoned decision on merits. Considering the assessee's business and the documentary evidence provided, the Tribunal decided that only the profit element embedded in the unexplained cash deposit should be taxed. It restricted the addition to 10% of Rs. 8,78,000, which is Rs. 87,800.

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The tribunal emphasized judicial discipline, stating that its previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19, which found the transactions to be circular trading rather than bogus, was binding given the identical facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. It held that the assessee, being an APMC licensed agent, deserved an opportunity to explain its case and produce relevant documents to substantiate its transactions and income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it was due to the AO's late delivery of the assessment order. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting a violation of natural justice, and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after imposing a cost of Rs. 1,000 on the assessee for non-compliance. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside, with liberty for the AO to initiate fresh proceedings.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to mitigating circumstances. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and violated natural justice principles. A cost of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to mitigating circumstances. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and violated natural justice principles. A cost of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it was due to the AO's late delivery of the assessment order. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting a violation of natural justice, and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after imposing a cost of Rs. 1,000 on the assessee for non-compliance. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside, with liberty for the AO to initiate fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the service of notices to the assessee. Therefore, it decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard and submit all necessary documents.

The tribunal condoned the delays in both appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the main partner's severe illness. The quantum appeal was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, and the penalty appeal was allowed, with the penalty deleted, though the AO could initiate fresh penalty proceedings. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that deduction for employee contributions to PF/ESI is only allowable if deposited within the due time specified by the respective statutes. Since the assessee failed to do so, the deduction was not allowed.

The tribunal condoned the delays in both appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the main partner's severe illness. The quantum appeal was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, and the penalty appeal was allowed, with the penalty deleted, though the AO could initiate fresh penalty proceedings. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot survive once substantive additions on the same income are sustained in the hands of the correct assessee. Since substantive additions were already made and confirmed in the hands of the partners, the protective additions in the hands of the firm were deleted.

The tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately verify the genuineness of the transactions. It held that an independent inquiry under Section 133(6) should be conducted by the lower authority to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of documentary evidence to support the written submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, instructing the Assessing Officer to examine the relevant documents and evidences to be submitted by the assessee.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and present all evidence.

The tribunal condoned the 80-day delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

The tribunal condoned the 80-day delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of documentary evidence to support the written submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, instructing the officer to examine the relevant documents and evidences to be submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of documentary evidence to support the written submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, instructing the Assessing Officer to examine the relevant documents and evidences to be submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's written submissions were unclear and lacked supporting documentary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, instructing the officer to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present evidence.