ITAT Ranchi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had granted multiple opportunities to the assessee, but they failed to comply. However, considering the undertaking by the assessee's AR to cooperate, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and furnish all documents.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had categorically held the assessee to be a going concern. The revenue failed to disprove this finding. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision on revaluation of closing stock was upheld, making the ITAT Kolkata's decision in Shyam Prasad Agarwal inapplicable.

The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were vague and did not clearly indicate any specific evasion by the assessee. The AO's own uncertainty about the taxability of capital gains and the absence of a mention of non-disclosure by the assessee were noted. Consequently, the issuance of the notice under section 148 and the subsequent reopening of assessment were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not permissible solely on the basis of a tax evasion petition and media hype. Given the pendency of PMLA and CBI proceedings, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is to re-adjudicate the issues after the finalization of PMLA proceedings, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not permissible solely on the basis of a tax evasion petition and media hype. Given the pendency of PMLA and CBI proceedings, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is to re-adjudicate the issues after the finalization of PMLA proceedings, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

At the time of hearing, the assessee's AR prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The CIT-DR raised no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that since the orders were passed ex-parte due to non-appearance and the assessee claims to have not been aware of the proceedings, the issues should be restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that there was no culpable negligence or mala fide on the part of the assessee. The medical certificate provided reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 67 days and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not permissible solely on the basis of a tax evasion petition and media hype. Given the pendency of PMLA and CBI proceedings, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is to re-adjudicate the issues after the finalization of PMLA proceedings, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) discussed various case laws regarding reopening, the closure of the order shifted focus to the addition without addressing the reopening issues adequately. The findings deleting the addition were without clear reasoning.

The tribunal held that for the four share applicants where substantial information was provided, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Lovely Exports. For the remaining nine applicants, the addition was confirmed as no information was provided. Regarding other expenses, the disallowance was reduced from 10% to 2.5%.

The Tribunal noted that the letter from M/s Gammon India Ltd. was dated after the assessment order and was not available to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the letter and to re-adjudicate the matter.

The Tribunal noted that the incorrect email address was used for sending notices, leading to the assessee's non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal noted that there was no representation before the AO and CIT(A). However, to ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association.

The Tribunal noted that the loans were taken and repaid during the assessment year or the immediately succeeding assessment year. The ledger accounts clearly showed the repayment of these loans, which was not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, there was no basis for retaining the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the orders were passed ex-parte due to non-appearance and the assessee claims to have not been aware of the proceedings, the issues should be restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's initial finding of cancelled registrations was erroneous, as subsequent verification confirmed the companies were active. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was unjustified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer passed the order due to non-representation. However, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that no speaking order was passed by the AO concerning the assessee's objections to the 148 notice. The appeals were restored to the AO for re-adjudication to pass a speaking order on the objections and then proceed with the assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices of hearing, but the assessee failed to comply. However, in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This restoration was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- per year to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days.

For the assessment year 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the disallowance of 10% was not permissible when the entire Rs.1.88 crores was questionable. For the assessment year 2018-19, the AO had admitted issuing a show cause notice that remained un-responded, and the CIT(A) considered evidence not before the AO.

The Tribunal observed that there were cash deposits followed by immediate withdrawals in the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal held that treating the peak credit in the bank accounts as income would be a fair method, and in this case, it would be below the income already disclosed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the pending PMLA proceedings would have a bearing on the outcome of these appeals. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) are set aside and restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the inapplicable portions were not struck off. This violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was defective because it failed to specifically mention whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts and the Supreme Court, which held that such ambiguous notices render the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted ample opportunities but the assessee failed to provide the required evidence. However, considering the assessee's plea for one more opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal based on the approval under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, referencing Section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024. The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the transactions with Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. The fact that the company was struck off from the register after the transactions did not invalidate the genuineness of the expenditure, especially when payments were made through banking channels.

For both appeals, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For ITA No.21/RAN/2023, the assessee was given an opportunity to prove the expenses. For ITA No.94/RAN/2023, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered evidence not presented before the AO.

The Tribunal noted that no speaking order was passed by the AO concerning the assessee's objections to the 148 notice. The appeals were restored to the AO for re-adjudication to pass a speaking order on the objections and then proceed with the assessment.

The Tribunal noted that no speaking order was passed by the AO concerning the assessee's objections to the 148 notice. The appeals were restored to the AO for re-adjudication to pass a speaking order on the objections and then proceed with the assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the order sheet entries confirmed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued for any of the assessment years. Since the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3), the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the order sheet entries confirmed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued for any of the assessment years. Since the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3), the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the reasons for reopening in the current assessment year were identical to those for the assessment year 2010-11. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2010-11, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the pending PMLA proceedings would have a bearing on the outcome of these appeals. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) are set aside and restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

For AY 2010-11, the additions on account of share capital were made without any incriminating material found during the search, hence the CIT(A)'s order was upheld. For AY 2015-16, the deletion of cash was upheld, but the issue of stock reconciliation was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the order sheet entries confirmed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued for any of the assessment years. Since the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3), the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the order sheet entries confirmed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued for any of the assessment years. Since the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3), the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the order sheet entries confirmed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued for any of the assessment years. Since the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3), the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the order sheet entries confirmed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued for any of the assessment years. Since the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3), the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the order sheet entries confirmed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued for any of the assessment years. Since the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3), the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the pending PMLA proceedings would have a bearing on the outcome of these appeals. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) are set aside and restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the pending PMLA proceedings would have a bearing on the outcome of these appeals. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) are set aside and restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the pending PMLA proceedings would have a bearing on the outcome of these appeals. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) are set aside and restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer passed the order due to non-representation. However, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted confirmation of amounts, balance sheets, Profit and Loss accounts, and bank statements of the lenders. The loans had been repaid, and as they were no longer continuing liabilities, there was no purpose in conducting a postmortem study. No specific error was found in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that while both the assessee and the AO used acceptable valuation methods, the Income Tax Act mandates a reference to the DVO in case of a dispute regarding valuation. Since this procedure was not followed by the AO, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not permissible.

The Tribunal restored the issues in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee was directed to provide a fresh email address for communication and to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings by providing necessary evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices of hearing, but the assessee failed to comply. However, in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This restoration was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- per year to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days.

The Tribunal noted that the AO only disallowed salary expenses and allowed other revenue expenses. The CIT(A) had found that salary expenses were paid to lower-level employees before the effective date of the rule prohibiting cash payments. The AO had not made specific disallowances in the computation of total income for the disputed expenditures.