BharatTax.net

ITAT Ranchi Judgments — March 2026

8 orders · Page 1 of 1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAMGARH vs BABITA PRASAD, BOKARO STEEL CITY
ITA 279/RAN/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI
ITA 262/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026AY 2015-16Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was served notices by the CIT(A), no compliance was made, leading to ex-parte orders. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI
ITA 263/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

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.

VIKASH ANAND,RANCHI vs ITO WARD W3(1), RANCHI, RANCHI
ITA 282/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

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.

MAHESH PODDAR JANKALYAN SANSTHAN,RANCHI vs ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI
ITA 284/RAN/2025[26-27]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026Allowed

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.

KAUSHAL JAIN,RANCHI vs ITO, WARD-1(5), RANCHI
ITA 286/RAN/2025[17-18]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026Allowed

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.

SUMBUL ALAM,RANCHI vs ASSISTANT COOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI
ITA 412/RAN/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the 266-day delay in filing the appeal, noting it was due to the authorized representative's failure to act and not the assessee's negligence. The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide explanations.

RINKI SINGH ,JAMSHEDPUR TELCO vs ITO WARD 2(1) JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR
ITA 56/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

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.