ITAT Ranchi Judgments — July 2025

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it or provide a remand report, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Consequently, the ITAT decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) to afford the AO a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to seek a remand report on the fresh evidence.

The Tribunal condoned a two-month delay in filing the appeal, accepting that it was not intentional. Recognizing the assessee's claim that non-compliance before the CIT(A) was due to the COVID-19 period and filed adjournment petitions, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh, providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit all necessary details.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's prayer, allowing the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of rejecting purchases while accepting sales and not rejecting the assessee's books of account was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was bad in law because it provided only 5 days for compliance, contrary to the Jurisdictional High Court's mandate of at least seven clear days. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition made against the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Crucially, the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening did not allege any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, the Tribunal ruled the reassessment was invalid and directed the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective because they did not explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that ambiguous penalty notices where inapplicable limbs are not struck off vitiate the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and directed the AO to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective because they did not explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that ambiguous penalty notices where inapplicable limbs are not struck off vitiate the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and directed the AO to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective because they did not explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that ambiguous penalty notices where inapplicable limbs are not struck off vitiate the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and directed the AO to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective because they did not explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that ambiguous penalty notices where inapplicable limbs are not struck off vitiate the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and directed the AO to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective because they did not explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that ambiguous penalty notices where inapplicable limbs are not struck off vitiate the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and directed the AO to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal noted that all facts were disclosed in the return. It held that merely declaring income under a different head, subsequently reclassified during assessment, does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) in the absence of a proven dishonest intent or material concealment. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s power under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act is limited to confirming, reducing, enhancing, or annulling the assessment order for the year under appeal only. The CIT(A) does not have the authority to issue directions to reopen assessments for other years. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to reopen the assessment for AY 2015-16 was beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and thus set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not claim deductions under Section 36(1)(viia)(d) but claimed actual bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii), having written them off in its books as irrecoverable and having added back provisions for bad debts in its return. Therefore, the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue, rendering the PCIT's Section 263 order invalid.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the penalty. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is a public sector undertaking, running in losses, and had already paid tax under Section 115JB of the Act. It was noted that the company itself admitted the mistake, attributing it to an inadvertent error by its Accountant/Auditor, and therefore, the entire company should not be held responsible for underreporting of income.

The Tribunal held that the valuation method used by the survey team for stock was arbitrary, as the assessee had already accounted for the income in its P&L. It further noted that once income is accepted as business income, taxing it under Section 69A as unexplained investment is impermissible. Consequently, the addition of Rs.5,55,488/- under Section 69A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective because they did not explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that ambiguous penalty notices where inapplicable limbs are not struck off vitiate the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and directed the AO to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law as a search operation had already been conducted, and reassessment should have been done under Section 153A. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that similar share transactions in the case of a family member were accepted by the department, and no specific adverse findings connecting the assessee to manipulation were produced.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law because the Assessing Officer, while issuing the notice, did not specify any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal stated that such a condition is essential for reopening a completed assessment after four years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition.