ITAT Ranchi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal noted the assessee's 'recalcitrant attitude' and non-cooperation across all stages, including before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal itself. Given the consistent failure to represent the case or provide evidence, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision and upheld the order, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed granted multiple opportunities but the assessee failed to comply. In the interest of justice and based on the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This restoration is conditional on the assessee paying Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days, cooperating in proceedings, furnishing all relevant documents, and not seeking unjustified adjournments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) orders, finding that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities but failed to upload necessary documents in the faceless assessment system and was unwilling to appear in the faceless mode. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not provide justifiable reasons for non-appearance nor demonstrate how the CIT(A) order was erroneous or perverse. Furthermore, the grounds raised before the Tribunal differed from those before the CIT(A), and no affidavit for additional grounds was filed.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the CIT(A) erred in applying the principle of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. despite the presence of incriminating material found during a search. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not made a finding on merits regarding the additions.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, rejecting the finding that no incriminating material was found and stating that such material formed the basis of the assessment. Consequently, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had recorded expense details and that the assessee claimed to possess supporting evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to present all required evidences to prove the claim of expenses.

Following its own precedent and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that a defective show cause notice under Section 274, which fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars), vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable as it failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, or how the assessee's case was affected by Supreme Court decisions. The AO had consciously considered and allowed the Section 80P deduction, and this position was consistently maintained in past and subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal concluded that the Pr.CIT's action amounted to substituting his opinion for that of the AO and accordingly quashed the Section 263 order.

The Tribunal rejected both adjournment applications. It found that the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as incriminating material was indeed found during the search, which formed the basis for assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were reversed, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deductions for construction costs (20% for CPWD rates, 15% for self-supervision) and confirmed the deletion of the addition for demonetized cash deposits due to lack of evidence for suppressed sales or stock variation. However, the assessee's claim for a ₹25.00 lacs bank loan to explain investment was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied judicial discipline by following a Coordinate Bench decision and that the revenue failed to present any evidence to contradict the factual findings that no sub-contractor was involved and payments were directly made within prescribed limits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee raised new legal grounds before it that were not presented to the CIT(A). Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the CIT(A) for readjudication on these new legal grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), noting the assessee's "recalcitrant attitude" and consistent non-representation before all authorities. It found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in ex parte proceedings, thereby dismissing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal rejected both adjournment applications. It found that the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as incriminating material was indeed found during the search, which formed the basis for assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were reversed, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal rejected both adjournment applications. It found that the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as incriminating material was indeed found during the search, which formed the basis for assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were reversed, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal rejected both adjournment applications. It found that the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as incriminating material was indeed found during the search, which formed the basis for assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were reversed, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal rejected both adjournment applications. It found that the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as incriminating material was indeed found during the search, which formed the basis for assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were reversed, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal rejected both adjournment applications. It found that the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as incriminating material was indeed found during the search, which formed the basis for assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were reversed, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment and found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as there was ample incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment and found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as there was ample incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied judicial discipline by following a Coordinate Bench decision and that the revenue failed to present any evidence to contradict the factual findings that no sub-contractor was involved and payments were directly made within prescribed limits.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified details, including with the Excise Department. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found that the PCIT's action was an attempt to re-examine issues already examined by the AO, which is not permissible under Section 263 when the AO has applied their mind.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment and found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as there was ample incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment and found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as there was ample incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment and found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as there was ample incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment and found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as there was ample incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment and found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as there was ample incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee raised new legal grounds before it that were not presented to the CIT(A). Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the CIT(A) for readjudication on these new legal grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied judicial discipline by following a Coordinate Bench decision and that the revenue failed to present any evidence to contradict the factual findings that no sub-contractor was involved and payments were directly made within prescribed limits.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied judicial discipline by following a Coordinate Bench decision and that the revenue failed to present any evidence to contradict the factual findings that no sub-contractor was involved and payments were directly made within prescribed limits.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied judicial discipline by following a Coordinate Bench decision and that the revenue failed to present any evidence to contradict the factual findings that no sub-contractor was involved and payments were directly made within prescribed limits.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied judicial discipline by following a Coordinate Bench decision and that the revenue failed to present any evidence to contradict the factual findings that no sub-contractor was involved and payments were directly made within prescribed limits.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the CIT(A) erred in applying the principle of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. despite the presence of incriminating material found during a search. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not made a finding on merits regarding the additions.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the CIT(A) erred in applying the principle of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. despite the presence of incriminating material found during a search. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not made a finding on merits regarding the additions.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the CIT(A) erred in applying the principle of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. despite the presence of incriminating material found during a search. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not made a finding on merits regarding the additions.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the CIT(A) erred in applying the principle of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. despite the presence of incriminating material found during a search. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not made a finding on merits regarding the additions.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the CIT(A) erred in applying the principle of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. despite the presence of incriminating material found during a search. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not made a finding on merits regarding the additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) orders, finding that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities but failed to upload necessary documents in the faceless assessment system and was unwilling to appear in the faceless mode. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not provide justifiable reasons for non-appearance nor demonstrate how the CIT(A) order was erroneous or perverse. Furthermore, the grounds raised before the Tribunal differed from those before the CIT(A), and no affidavit for additional grounds was filed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) orders, finding that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities but failed to upload necessary documents in the faceless assessment system and was unwilling to appear in the faceless mode. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not provide justifiable reasons for non-appearance nor demonstrate how the CIT(A) order was erroneous or perverse. Furthermore, the grounds raised before the Tribunal differed from those before the CIT(A), and no affidavit for additional grounds was filed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) orders, finding that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities but failed to upload necessary documents in the faceless assessment system and was unwilling to appear in the faceless mode. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not provide justifiable reasons for non-appearance nor demonstrate how the CIT(A) order was erroneous or perverse. Furthermore, the grounds raised before the Tribunal differed from those before the CIT(A), and no affidavit for additional grounds was filed.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, rejecting the finding that no incriminating material was found and stating that such material formed the basis of the assessment. Consequently, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, rejecting the finding that no incriminating material was found and stating that such material formed the basis of the assessment. Consequently, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, rejecting the finding that no incriminating material was found and stating that such material formed the basis of the assessment. Consequently, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, rejecting the finding that no incriminating material was found and stating that such material formed the basis of the assessment. Consequently, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment, emphasizing that appeal provisions are statutory and CIT(A) are quasi-judicial authorities. It accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to allow the production of all relevant evidences, including a copy of the CBI affidavit, if any, filed in the fodder scam cases.

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment, emphasizing that appeal provisions are statutory and CIT(A) are quasi-judicial authorities. It accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to allow the production of all relevant evidences, including a copy of the CBI affidavit, if any, filed in the fodder scam cases.

The tribunal held that since the incriminating information was derived from a search on a third party, the assessment should have been initiated under Section 153C or 153A of the Income Tax Act. The reopening of the assessment under Sections 147/148 was deemed bad in law, and consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the 1846-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons plausible based on judicial precedents. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for readjudication, instructing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present its case, considering the CIT(A) had previously confirmed orders due to non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. by concluding there was no incriminating material, despite a search being conducted and incriminating material (PKRB-05) being found. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' inability to produce necessary evidence before lower authorities. In the interest of justice and to provide adequate opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues in both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.