ITAT Ranchi Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the impugned contribution represented a genuine donation eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. The Tribunal noted that the investigation material, bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party constituted a complete chain of circumstances demonstrating that the donation was an accommodation entry. The party's failure to provide audited financial statements and confirm its return filing, coupled with its alleged involvement in facilitating bogus claims, raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the donation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal v. CIT, stating that taxing authorities are not required to ignore surrounding circumstances and can look beyond apparent transactions. The Tribunal also followed the consistent view of co-ordinate benches in identical matters. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order affirming the disallowance made by the AO. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,73,983/- as additional business income was acceptable. The AO considered the total turnover as Rs. 1,00,39,426/- and computed net profit at 12.5%, which was accepted by both parties as turnover. The assessee's plea to offer only 8% on the difference was rejected as he had already declared 12.5% income under Section 44AD on a portion of the turnover. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not declare closing cash in hand for the previous year and provided no documentary evidence for the opening cash balance. Regarding the Rs. 14,05,000/- cash deposit, the Tribunal found that these deposits were out of the assessee's income and were utilized for payments like EMIs and electricity bills. Therefore, telescoping benefit should be given. The issue was remitted to the AO to determine the availability of funds after considering the cash flow statement, with the direction that the assessee would not get any benefit of the opening cash balance. If the AO finds any shortfall, the addition would be restricted to that extent. The assessee was directed to provide a correct cash flow statement.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly held that the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee once the identity of the party, JS Traders, with its proprietor Shri Shafiqur Rehman (the assessee's brother), was established. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the evidence, including the GST registration and the brother's Income Tax Return, which linked the account and business to Shafiqur Rahman. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the bank account did not belong to the assessee but to JS Traders, the proprietorship of his brother. Therefore, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to appear before the AO, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 without conducting an independent inquiry to establish the assessee's identity in relation to the seized document. The document JMD-06 was seized from a third party's premises and named Dr. Om Prakash Jha and Sudha Thakur. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the document did not belong to the assessee and that the AO had not brought any material on record to prove otherwise, concluding it was a case of mistaken identity. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and held that no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee based on the evidence presented. The addition of ₹1,86,43,431/- was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the AO had tangible information from the Directorate of Investigation regarding huge deposits in the assessee's bank account, which was sufficient to support reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that there was no tangible material. Regarding the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in share trading, all transactions were made through banking channels and the assessee had produced entire transaction details with the broker and bank statements. The AO had not brought out any discrepancy in these share transactions or their source. Therefore, the addition of ₹2,83,44,250/- under Section 69A as unexplained money could not be sustained and was deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address Ground 3 (escapement of income) or Ground 4 (natural justice) as separate issues but implicitly found no escapement by deleting the addition. The appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any evidence or material to conclude that the assessee had received the alleged bogus loan of ₹4,00,031 from Shri Mukesh Banka. In the absence of any such material on record brought forth by the AO, no addition could be made under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition and upheld that decision. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Satish Kumar Vs. Pr.CIT and a coordinate bench decision in Mantosh Kumar Vs. ACIT, which held that a clear seven days' notice must be provided to the assessee for compliance under Section 148A(b). In this case, the notice dated 30/03/2024 required the assessee to respond by 05/04/2024, providing only five clear days, which violates the mandate of the Act. Therefore, the notice under Section 148A(b) was quashed, making all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, unsustainable and nullities. The appeal was allowed on this ground, and the issue of profit estimation was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to immunity under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While the tax and interest were paid and no appeal was filed against the assessment order, the assessee had not filed a specific application to the Assessing Officer for immunity from penalty as required by Section 270AA. The Tribunal noted that the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA were not fulfilled. Regarding the penalty under Section 270A, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately considered the facts and circumstances presented by the assessee, including the reasons for not filing the return under Section 139(1) and the immediate filing of the return in response to the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation as a bonafide case where reasonable cause prevented timely filing. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it was not a fit case for imposing penalty under Section 270A(2) and directed the deletion of the penalty. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had examined the issue in detail and was satisfied before deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not admitted any additional evidence beyond the transactions made through the bank. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The ratio decidendi is that if the appellate authority is satisfied with the explanation and documentation provided by the assessee, and no additional evidence beyond banking transactions was admitted, the appellate order should be upheld, even if the Assessing Officer had made additions due to lack of submission from the assessee. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised serious jurisdictional aspects in the grounds of appeal but was absent during the hearing. The Tribunal heard the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) and considered the grounds of appeal and the record. The Sr. DR reiterated that the AO and CIT(A) had considered the assessee's objections and provided ample opportunity. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions and objections, and adhering to the principles of natural justice, directed the AO to make a fresh assessment. The assessee had also filed a rectification application under Section 154, arguing that the jurisdictional ground was not disposed of, which was rejected by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after considering the Sr. DR's submissions and the record, held that it was appropriate to remand the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider all documents, evidence, and submissions to be made by the assessee for a true assessment of income. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessment order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that once profit is estimated, it inherently takes into account possible leakages, deficiencies, and unverifiable expenses recorded in the books of account. Therefore, making an additional disallowance for the same set of transactions would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and saw no reason to interfere. The addition of ₹2,49,40,034/- made under Section 69C was deleted by the CIT(A) on the grounds of double taxation, which the Tribunal found to be correct. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of whether Section 69C and Section 145(3) operate independently, as the primary reasoning for upholding the CIT(A)'s order was the principle of avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the AO had tangible information from the Directorate of Investigation regarding huge deposits in the assessee's bank account, which was sufficient to support reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that there was no tangible material. Regarding the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in share trading, all transactions were made through banking channels and the assessee had produced entire transaction details with the broker and bank statements. The AO had not brought out any discrepancy in these share transactions or their source. Therefore, the addition of ₹2,83,44,250/- under Section 69A as unexplained money could not be sustained and was deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address Ground 3 (escapement of income) or Ground 4 (natural justice) as separate issues but implicitly found no escapement by deleting the addition. The appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT, Ranchi, had jurisdiction to pass the order under section 263. The Tribunal reasoned that despite the section 127 order transferring jurisdiction to Kolkata, the PAN was never migrated, and the case records and statutory proceedings continued to remain with the Ranchi authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction should be viewed in practical terms of control over assessment records, citing CIT Vs. Sahara Indian Financial Corporation Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee's jurisdictional objection was technical and lacked substance, as the de facto and de jure jurisdiction continued with Ranchi. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the AO's order dated 15.05.2017 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because it disregarded the directions given by the PCIT, Ranchi, under section 264 to examine the genuineness of share capital/premium. The Tribunal concluded that the revision order was not only within jurisdiction but also mandated by law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.