ITAT Ranchi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's unawareness of prior proceedings. Recognizing the lack of compliance before the CIT(A) and the need for proper adjudication, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, instructing the assessee to provide all necessary documentation.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not present the facts as required by the CIT(E). In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh examination. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was instructed to comply with all future notices.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's inability to fully address CIT(E)'s requirements and, prioritizing justice and fair play, remanded the appeals back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the issue, affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, while the assessee was instructed to fully comply with all notices and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessees could not adequately present facts as desired by the Ld. CIT(E). In the interest of justice, the appeals are remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh examination. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessees are directed to comply with all notices by filing supporting documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to furnish all required documents and present their case adequately before the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh examination of the issue after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and submitting all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, remanded all appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh examination of the issue. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessees were instructed to comply with all notices and furnish the required documents to substantiate their claims.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessees' difficulty in meeting the CIT(E)'s requirements and the Ld. DR's non-objection, remanded all appeals back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to re-examine the issue afresh, providing the assessees a reasonable opportunity of being heard, while the assessees are instructed to comply with all future notices.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, found that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No.9/2024. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed on account of low tax effect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be non-intentional and justifiable, especially given the assessee's background and absence from India. Citing principles of natural justice and considering income tax laws as welfare legislation, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance despite opportunities. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, with a direction for the assessee to comply with future notices, otherwise fresh ex-parte orders could be passed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal of the assessee's appeal was made without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. For the sake of justice and fair play, the entire issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal observed that all payments for the jointly purchased property were made by the assessee's husband, and his assessment for the same property had already been concluded by accepting his return without any addition. Thus, the Tribunal held that the addition in the assessee's hands was legally unsustainable as it amounted to double taxation. Consequently, the related penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271AAC(1) and 270A were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition in the assessee's hands was bad in law because the entire investment was made by her husband, and the transaction was already covered in his assessment, which was accepted without addition. Making an addition in the assessee's case for the same property would lead to double taxation. Consequently, the additions and related penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) and 270A were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the assessee's hands was bad in law because all payments for the jointly purchased property were made by the husband, and the property was already offered in his return of income, which was accepted. Making an addition to the assessee for the same property would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the alleged additions and consequential penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAC(1) and 270A against the assessee were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's explanation, supported by a tax auditor's certificate, regarding the incorrect reporting in Form 3CD and the nature of the commission. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's explanation and tax auditor's certificate regarding the Form 3CD error. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, directing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and a decision on the merits.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal had already been dismissed as withdrawn on 06.03.2025, based on the assessee's prayer and the absence of objection from the Sr. DR. The Tribunal therefore formally dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, confirming the earlier decision, as there was no issue left for adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of justice and fair play, decided to remand the case back to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) is directed to re-examine the issue afresh, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit supported documents to clarify its object clause. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the full addition of Rs. 16,28,109/- for bogus purchases was bad in law as books of accounts were not rejected and sales were accepted. However, acceding to the assessee's willingness to avoid litigation, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a GP rate of 7.92% on the disputed purchase. This restricted the addition to Rs. 1,28,950/-, leading to the deletion of the balance Rs. 14,99,159/-.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for non-appearance before the lower authorities to be genuine. It decided to remand the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and instructing the assessee to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed withdrawn Rs. 14,50,800/- and deposited Rs. 10,42,000/- from these withdrawals. It held that the management of bank accounts is at the assessee's discretion, and the AO failed to provide material evidence that the cash came from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit during demonetization was accepted, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A).