ITAT Ranchi Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal. The revenue's representative had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the inapplicable portions were not struck off. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the exact limb of the section under which penalty proceedings were initiated (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the exact limb under which penalty was being levied (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following its own previous decisions and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it failed to specify the exact limb of section 271(1)(c) for which the penalty was initiated, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found the penalty to be vitiated due to the defective notice.

The ITAT held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it failed to specify the exact limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following its own previous decisions and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal found it proper to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. The assessee was directed to produce all documentary evidence required by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the exact limb of the offense (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty was being initiated. Relying on its previous decisions and various High Court and Supreme Court pronouncements, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be void ab initio.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to avail the opportunity and furnish necessary details, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that a defect in the penalty notice, where the specific charge for the penalty (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) is not clearly specified and the inapplicable portions are not struck off, vitiates the penalty. The Tribunal, following its own precedent and various High Court judgments, set aside the penalty orders.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had remanded the matter for fresh assessment as the assessee did not appear or provide evidence. While the assessee argued they had submitted details, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish all documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of a defective penalty notice, where inapplicable portions are not struck off, has been consistently decided by various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Following its own precedent and the ratio of various cited judgments, the Tribunal held that the penalty notice was indeed defective as it did not clearly specify the charge, making it void ab initio. Therefore, all subsequent penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty notice did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal held that such a defect in the penalty notice renders the penalty void ab initio and vitiates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found that such a defective notice is void ab initio and violates principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty imposed was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) was defective because it did not specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) and the inapplicable portion was not struck off. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including the Manjunatha Cotton case and subsequent cases, the Tribunal concluded that such a defect vitiates the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found that this issue was dealt with by the same bench in similar cases and applied the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Consequently, the delay of 18 days was condoned, and the issues were restored to the file of the Id. JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of not being provided fair opportunities and the potential for bonafide hardship or lack of awareness. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, nor were the inapplicable portions struck off. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the inappropriate portions were not struck off. Relying on multiple High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the genuine hardship faced by the assessee. On merits, considering the principles of natural justice and the ex parte assessment, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-compliance (partner's illness and managing partner's custody) to be genuine. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of retirement benefits being tax-exempt and the difficulty in obtaining documentation due to employer non-cooperation, which led to non-filing of returns and inability to explain certain deposits. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were indeed barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was served on the assessee after the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Additionally, the Tribunal found the additions on merits unsustainable, noting that the books of account were not rejected, additions were based on estimation, and the opening stock accepted in a subsequent year rendered the closing stock addition invalid. The disallowance of commission expenses was also deleted.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment under section 148 was issued beyond the four-year period stipulated in the first proviso to section 147, making it barred by limitation. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment was based on the same material that was part of the original assessment, constituting a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on a technical ground of limitation without considering the merits. It emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and the matter deserved to be restored for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the absence of the assessee's representative and the nature of the grounds raised, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that when reassessment proceedings are initiated on a specific ground (cash deposits) but no addition is made on that ground, the AO cannot make additions on other issues. Reliance was placed on the judgment of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. The Tribunal also found that on merits, the opening capital and stock of an ongoing business cannot be treated as unexplained investments, and the additions for expenditure lacked justification.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed if the income addition is based on estimation, as established by various case laws. The penalty was levied based on an estimated gross profit.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the reasons and the specific clause under which the penalty under Section 271AAB was being imposed in the notice issued under Section 274. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.