ITAT Ranchi Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Given the assessee's clear intent not to pursue the matter and the lack of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without delving into the merits of the case. To ensure natural justice, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh on merit, cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merit, providing another opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly with the proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the reconciliation was available to the lower authorities. It held that the amount of ₹ 6,22,624/- represented genuine benefits like time payment schemes and credit notes received by the assessee on purchase price. Therefore, the Tribunal found the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) to be unsustainable and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted a final opportunity to the assessee to represent their case and furnish all relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. It was directed that if the assessee fails to comply, the AO is at liberty to pass the assessment order as per law based on available materials.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) had provided opportunities but, to render substantial justice, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee paying Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the Jharkhand Tax Bar Association and producing all required documents before the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the 514-day delay, finding no malafide intent on the assessee's part. The assessment, originally passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 due to non-compliance, was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing due opportunity and considering all evidences from the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the section 14A disallowance, directing the AO to recompute it considering only investments that yielded exempt income. For depreciation, it was allowed for assets used for office maintenance, share dealing, and litigation, but disallowed for a weigh bridge as no business activity was conducted with it during the assessment year.

The tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as the approval was obtained from the Pr.CIT, a superior authority, instead of the JCIT/Addl.CIT, which is mandatory for reopening within four years, citing precedents from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. Furthermore, on merits, the balance sheets confirmed that the assessee had not received or introduced the alleged share capital during the impugned year, rendering the basis for reopening and the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal observed the ex-parte assessment and the CIT(A)'s remand report indicating the bank's non-response regarding the deposit. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard. Any resulting tax demand is to be recovered from the disputed time deposit if the bank remains unresponsive.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the 177-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), observing that there was no malafide intention on the assessee's part due to family illness. The ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment under Section 147 r.w.s 144B, directing the AO to consider all evidences and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The ITAT, relying on a coordinate bench decision, held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It affirmed that if there is no taxable income, the advance tax payable for the purpose of presenting the appeal should be taken as NIL.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to present all evidence during the original assessment and the CIT-DR's lack of objection, decided to grant another opportunity. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, allowing the assessee to substantiate its claims in the interest of justice.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide any evidence beyond the assessee's statement to justify the addition. The Tribunal reiterated that income cannot be brought to tax merely on a statement unless corroborative evidence of earned income is found and a revised return is filed, neither of which occurred in this case.

The Tribunal, relying on a Coordinate Bench decision in Rajesh Badri Pd. Modi, held that Section 115BBE cannot be applied to income disclosed in a Section 139(1) return, especially in the absence of specific additions under Sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D. The Assessing Officer was directed to compute the tax at regular rates.

The Tribunal held that since the reopening was beyond the four-year period and the original assessment was completed, the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act came into play. As the Assessing Officer failed to record any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for assessment, the reopening was unsustainable, bad in law, and the consequential assessment was annulled.

The Tribunal, noting the CIT(A)'s efforts to provide opportunities, restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to ensure substantial justice. The assessee is required to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Tax Bar Association as costs and is granted liberty to present all necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that a Jurisdictional High Court's decision (Jharkhand HC in Arun Kumar Agarwal) must be followed over a non-jurisdictional High Court's decision (Calcutta HC in Swati Bajaj) on similar facts. As the assessee provided all relevant documents to substantiate the claim for deduction under section 10(38), the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposit by producing a registered settlement deed and affidavits from her brothers confirming the payment for relinquishment of her share in ancestral property. Although the manner of keeping the cash-in-hand was not fully explained, the Tribunal held that this did not invalidate the explanation of the source, and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as it was initiated beyond the four-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year, and the Assessing Officer failed to record any non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee, as mandated by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the reopening and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce evidence for her business activity and turnover, or GST returns. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, directing the AO to verify the assessee's business claim through an Inspector and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer accepted other sources of cash deposits but disbelieved only a portion of sundry debtor recoveries without specifying which debtors were disbelieved, despite the assessee furnishing complete particulars. Consequently, the Tribunal found the addition of ₹ 4,63,709/- by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) to be unsustainable and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of objection from the Revenue, accepted the assessee's request and consequently dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessee were previously partly allowed and restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Consequently, holding that the penalties could not stand without a final quantum assessment, the Tribunal deleted all penalties imposed under Section 272A(1)(d), Section 271F, and Section 271(1)(b).

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was unrepresented before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided that the issue of the difference between the flat's purchase price and government value should also be restored to the AO for readjudication. The AO is directed to issue fresh notices and provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.

Following judicial precedents, including a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court and a Co-ordinate Bench, the Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148A(b) was invalid as it failed to provide the mandatory clear seven days for response. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed both the defective notice and the subsequent assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144.

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose material facts. Since the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and the Section 148 notice was issued beyond four years, the reopening was violative of the proviso to Section 147. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the Section 148 notice and the consequent assessment order.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessee were previously partly allowed and restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Consequently, holding that the penalties could not stand without a final quantum assessment, the Tribunal deleted all penalties imposed under Section 272A(1)(d), Section 271F, and Section 271(1)(b).

The Tribunal observed that the reasons for reopening the assessment in the assessee's case were identical to those recorded for his mother, Smt. Maheshwari Devi. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had previously quashed the reopening in the mother's case, ruling that the reasons amounted to 'reason to suspect' rather than 'reason to believe' and lacked a live link to income escapement. Following this precedent, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order for the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessee were previously partly allowed and restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Consequently, holding that the penalties could not stand without a final quantum assessment, the Tribunal deleted all penalties imposed under Section 272A(1)(d), Section 271F, and Section 271(1)(b).

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessee were previously partly allowed and restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Consequently, holding that the penalties could not stand without a final quantum assessment, the Tribunal deleted all penalties imposed under Section 272A(1)(d), Section 271F, and Section 271(1)(b).

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessee were previously partly allowed and restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Consequently, holding that the penalties could not stand without a final quantum assessment, the Tribunal deleted all penalties imposed under Section 272A(1)(d), Section 271F, and Section 271(1)(b).

The tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the assessee's written submissions and enclosures. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, with directions to consider the submissions and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without appreciating or dealing with the assessee's contentions. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after duly considering all submissions and documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without appreciating or dealing with the assessee's contentions. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after duly considering all submissions and documentary evidence.

The tribunal found that the AO had conducted proper inquiries by issuing a notice under Section 142(1) and the assessee had provided detailed replies and confirmations. The AO's acceptance of the explanations without additions, even after PCIT's specific directions, indicated due application of mind. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the original assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and thus set aside the revisionary order.

The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal, finding that the appeal was wrongly filed, allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as such, with liberty to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and Form No. 2 was pending. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal by filing an appropriate application if the settlement under the scheme does not fructify.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without examining the merits of the case, which is contrary to law. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh, provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and decide the appeal on merits. The assessee was directed to comply with all notices during the remand proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessees the liberty to apply for reinstatement of the appeals if they are unable to avail the VSVS-2024 scheme. This decision was based on the premise that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending if the assessees opted for the settlement scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessees the liberty to apply for reinstatement of the appeals if they are unable to avail the VSVS-2024 scheme. This decision was based on the premise that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending if the assessees opted for the settlement scheme.

The tribunal held that since both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders, and considering income tax laws are welfare legislation, the benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with directions to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard to present all details and evidence.