ITAT Ranchi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit necessary supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was invalid as no prior show cause notice for that specific penalty was issued to the assessee. Deeming this a violation of natural justice, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty could not be justified and therefore deleted it.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) summarily rejected the application without adequately examining the genuineness of the activities or affording proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, directing a reasoned order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity.

Observing that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the assessee failed to appear before it, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the entire matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the matter in accordance with law.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 was accepted, and Form No. 2 was issued, rendering the appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the explicit liberty granted to the assessee to seek its restoration if the final settlement under the VSVS scheme is not concluded.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to the ex-parte assessment and the requirement for factual verification. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days; failure to do so will result in the CIT(A) order being confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the ancestral property was jointly owned and the renovation investment was made by all co-owners, not solely by the assessee. It further ruled that the AO lacked the authority to estimate the valuation of the property and failed to refer the matter to the DVO. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were deleted for both assessment years.

The Tribunal observed that the certificate from the Village Mukhia clearly established that the assessee owned 6 acres of agricultural land and was deriving agricultural income. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for both assessment years were incorrect and liable to be deleted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the issue of sundry creditors to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce all relevant documents, and is directed to cooperate with the AO in the readjudication proceedings.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application due to lack of details for the authorized representative. However, acknowledging the assessee's claim regarding incorrect email service, it partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the case to the CIT(A) for readjudication with directions to send notices to the correct email address and ensure a proper hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities but the assessee failed to comply. However, in the interest of justice and based on the AR's undertaking to cooperate, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and furnish all necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the Village Mukhia's certificate clearly proved the assessee's ownership of agricultural land and the generation of agricultural income. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were directed to be deleted for both assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the property was ancestral and jointly owned by the assessee and his three brothers, all of whom had invested in the renovation. The Tribunal also found that the AO was not competent to determine the valuation of the renovation without referring the matter to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A), restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present documents. This was conditioned on the assessee paying Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within sixty days and cooperating with the AO.

The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence (PAN, ITR, bank statements, audited accounts) to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. It held that non-compliance by third parties to summons could not be held against the assessee when the department failed to conduct independent inquiries. Following judicial precedents and its own previous decision for the assessee on similar facts for a subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 68 and directed recomputation of income, allowing the set-off of losses.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and submit documents. This re-adjudication is conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within sixty days.

The Tribunal held that the sum could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 for AY 2012-13, as the funds were received in FY 2010-11 (AY 2011-12) and reflected as "Share Application Money Pending Allotment" prior to the relevant assessment year. Since section 68 applies only to sums credited in the books during the *relevant previous year* and no fresh inflow occurred in FY 2011-12, the addition was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the Rs. 34 lakhs addition, but a part of the unexplained cash credit (Rs. 1,51,63,478/-) was upheld due to a lack of proper submission from the assessee. Given this, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the unaddressed issue of Rs. 1,51,63,478/- back to the CIT(A) for re-examination and a decision on merits. The other appeals were also allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act were invalid as they were mechanical, granted without independent application of mind by the approving authority, and it was humanly impossible to review 21 cases within a single day considering the travel time and processing requirements. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that Section 153D requires application of mind for each assessment year and assessee. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were communicated to the assessees beyond the statutory limitation period, and the intimation letter did not comply with CBDT Circular No.19/2019 regarding the issuance of orders with proper DINs and approvals for manual communications.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was an ex-parte dismissal without considering the merits. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for re-examination of the issues, directing the CIT(A) to afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also required to comply with notices.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should take precedence over technicalities like limitation. It condoned the delays in filing both appeals and restored the matters to the Addl/JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, finding that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically for 21 cases on the same day without proper application of mind, citing precedents and noting the practical impossibility of such a process across different cities within a single day. It also observed discrepancies in the dates of assessment orders (24.11.2023) versus DIN generation (28.11.2023) and communication (29.11.2023), indicating potential violation of limitation rules and the CBDT circular.

The tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D for 21 cases on a single day was mechanical and without due application of mind, thus rendering the approvals invalid. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the tribunal concluded that such invalid approvals vitiated the consequential assessment orders. While noting non-compliance with DIN requirements, the tribunal refrained from ruling on this issue as it was sub-judice before the Supreme Court, having already quashed the assessment orders on the grounds of invalid approval.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for multiple assessment years across 21 cases was mechanical and without proper application of mind, rendering the approvals invalid. It also found that assessment orders dated 24.11.2023 were communicated to assessees via email only on 29.11.2023, after the DIN generation date of 28.11.2023, leading to the conclusion that the orders were beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the approvals and the consequential assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, finding that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical, lacking proper application of mind by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Ranchi. Citing Delhi High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that such approvals cannot be mere formalities. It further noted that while assessment orders were dated 24.11.2023, the DINs were generated on 28.11.2023 and orders communicated via email on 29.11.2023, effectively rendering them beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal declined to rule on the DIN compliance issue, as it is sub judice before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for 21 cases across three assessees was mechanical and without proper application of mind, relying on precedents from the Delhi High Court, Orissa High Court, and Supreme Court. It was noted that the physical distance and time constraints made a genuine review impossible on the approval date. Consequently, the approvals and the ensuing assessment orders were quashed. The issue of DIN non-compliance was noted but not adjudicated due to it being sub-judice before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not fully addressed the assessee's submissions regarding an unexplained cash credit of Rs.1.51 crore. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted this specific issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh re-examination and a decision on merits, while other appeals would follow suit.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was invalid due to non-application of mind by the approving authority, citing various High Court and Supreme Court precedents that mandate judicious and individual consideration for each assessment year and assessee. It further found that the communication of assessment orders after the limitation date, coupled with the delayed generation and communication of the DIN, vitiated the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the approvals and all consequential assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 1,51,63,478/- due to the assessee's lack of proper submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand this specific unaddressed issue back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present all submissions. All connected appeals for other assessment years were also allowed for statistical purposes, applying the same principle.

The Tribunal condoned the 525-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Consequently, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard and directed to produce all necessary documentary evidence during the readjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's imprisonment constituted a valid reason for the delay in filing appeals before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and restored the issues for all assessment years to the file of the JCIT(A)/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the bank account in question was clearly reflected in the assessee's return of income and audited accounts. Therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 based on a wrong assumption of facts was held to be bad in law, and the alleged addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delays in filing the appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities like limitation. Consequently, the issues in both appeals were restored to the file of the JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a directive to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148A(b) did not provide the clear seven days for response as mandated by law. Following the precedents set by the Coordinate Bench and the Jurisdictional High Court (Satish Kumar Vs Pr.CIT), the tribunal held the notice under Section 148A(b) to be invalid and quashed it. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act was also quashed.

The Tribunal quashed the approvals granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, finding them to be mechanical and granted without proper application of mind by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, citing precedents from the Delhi High Court (Shiv Kumar Nayyar, MDLR Hotels) and the Orissa High Court (Serajuddin & Co.). It was observed that the physical and time constraints made it impossible for the approving authority to have genuinely reviewed 21 cases in a single day. The Tribunal also noted that assessment orders, though dated 24.11.2023, were only served/communicated via email on 29.11.2023, with DIN generated on 28.11.2023, thus making them time-barred as per the principles of communication of orders for limitation purposes. While acknowledging the DIN issue, the Tribunal chose not to render a definitive view on it as it is sub-judice before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D for 21 cases, granted mechanically on the same day by the Additional CIT, lacked proper application of mind and thus vitiated the assessment orders, citing various High Court and Supreme Court precedents. Furthermore, the assessment orders, though dated 24.11.2023 (limitation date), were found to have their DIN generated on 28.11.2023 and communicated via email on 29.11.2023, indicating a lapse beyond the limitation period for effective service. Consequently, the approvals and the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the 161-day delay, acknowledging the communication deficiency. It restored the assessment issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, conditional upon the assessee paying Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days. Failure to comply with this condition would lead to the CIT(A)'s order being confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice and fair play, remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to afford sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal also stipulated that an ex-parte order could be passed by the CIT(A) if the assessee fails to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal ruled that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, as indicated by the simultaneous approval for multiple cases and the insufficient time for review. It further held that the assessment orders were vitiated as they were communicated to the assessees after the limitation date and lacked proper DIN compliance as mandated by CBDT circulars. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the approvals and the assessment orders.

The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision in M/s Central Coalfields Limited, held that the seller (assessee) is not responsible for verifying Form 27C once it is duly filled and signed by the purchaser. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Assessing Officer's orders under section 206C for the financial years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, finding no substantial question of law. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

Following the Jurisdictional High Court's precedent in a similar case (M/s Central Coalfields Limited), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It confirmed that the Income Tax Act and Rules do not mandate the seller to verify the genuineness of Form 27C declarations submitted by buyers for claiming exemption from TCS, and thus, the orders under Section 206C were rightly quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee (seller) is not responsible for verifying the genuineness of Form 27C declarations submitted by buyers, once duly filed. Relying on a Jharkhand High Court judgment in a similar case (M/s Central Coalfields Limited), the Tribunal clarified that the verification responsibility lies with the purchaser/declarant, not the seller. If a buyer provides a false statement, the seller should not be held responsible. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to late filing. Considering the assessee's incarceration and related legal complications, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the issues are restored to the file of the JCIT(A)/CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The ITAT found the assessee's reasons for the delay plausible and not false. It condoned the 395-day delay and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh readjudication, directing the assessee to provide all relevant documentary evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked consideration of the case's merits. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the issues after providing the assessee sufficient opportunity to be heard and comply with future notices.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the VSVS Scheme and the likelihood of amicable settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to file an application for revival if the settlement under the scheme does not materialize.