ITAT Ranchi Judgments — March 2026

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and the assessee claimed lack of proper opportunities. Although the assessee was served notices, it failed to comply. Considering the principles of natural justice and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

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 upheld the order of the CIT(A). It found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order, considering all available materials. The Tribunal agreed that the transactions in the assessee's bank account were due to the Auto Sweep feature, indicating a rotation of the same funds, and that the bank accounts and FDs were jointly held with her husband who had received retirement benefits.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and the assessee claimed lack of proper opportunities. Although the assessee was served notices, it failed to comply. Considering the principles of natural justice and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The delay was considered not inordinate and not intentional, and therefore, the delay of 148 days was condoned.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not fully respond to notices. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal felt that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The issues were restored to the file of CIT(E) for readjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the entire credits other than cash in the bank accounts included inter-bank transfers and unsecured loans. It found that the unsecured loan of Rs. 45,00,000 and inter-bank transfers of Rs. 9,64,788 were duly explained. After accounting for these, the net sale consideration was closer to the total cash deposited, indicating no unexplained cash credit.

The Tribunal held that the agreement for sale was executed in 2010, prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under this section was not sustainable, despite the sale deed being registered in 2018. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on technical grounds.