ITAT Surat Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69A were legally untenable as the money was recorded in the books of account and disclosed in the ITR. The Tribunal also found that the additions were not justified under Section 68. Consequently, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the continued operation of the bank account under the old PAN, even after purported dissolution and conversion to a new firm, suggested the dissolved entity was still functionally active. The assessee's failure to provide concrete documentary evidence to link the transactions to the new firm's accounts rendered the explanation insufficient.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the rejoinder of the assessee and the decisions relied upon by them. The appellate order was passed without considering these aspects.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order in most respects. The assessee's appeals were also dismissed, except for two specific appeals which were allowed for statistical purposes to exclude goods returned from unaccounted purchases.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16, dated 29-07-2022, was beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 149 of the Act and thus void ab initio and bad in law. This decision was based on the judicial precedents set by the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., where the revenue had conceded that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 would not be tenable.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, upholding the AO's addition. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the adjournment request and set aside the order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 327 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the service of hearing notices to a wrong email ID. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly directed verification of VAT payments and had appropriately considered the gross profit estimation based on the assessee's own previous years.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s ex-parte orders and restored both matters to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case. It directed the CIT(E) to provide adequate opportunity and the assessee to promptly respond to future notices.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly directed verification of VAT payments and had appropriately considered the gross profit estimation based on the assessee's own previous years.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. It held that the reopening of assessment was justified due to lack of stock details and non-compliance. The deletion of additions for unpaid VAT and estimated gross profit by the CIT(A) was also upheld.

The appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn based on the submission that the assessee has availed the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty is granted to revive the appeal if the benefit of the scheme is not allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee made part compliance but failed to furnish documentary evidence for the claimed interest expenses. Although the non-compliance was attributed to the death of the original CA, the Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision for a co-owner of the same properties, noted that the DVO's valuation of Rs. 510 per Sq. Meter was high due to factors like high-tension lines and lack of proper access. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a uniform rate of Rs. 450 per Sq. Meter for both properties, thereby restricting the addition to Rs. 3,53,300/-.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that there was no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The tribunal emphasized that while a liberal approach can be taken, it cannot defeat the law of limitation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that despite a liberal approach, sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning delay. The assessee failed to provide cogent reasons for the significant delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that despite a liberal approach, sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning delay. The assessee failed to provide cogent reasons for the significant delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that despite a liberal approach, sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning delay. The assessee failed to provide cogent reasons for the significant delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that despite a liberal approach, sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning delay. The assessee failed to provide cogent reasons for the significant delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that despite a liberal approach, sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning delay. The assessee failed to provide cogent reasons for the significant delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that despite a liberal approach, sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning delay. The assessee failed to provide cogent reasons for the significant delay.

The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, finding no sufficient cause and deeming the delay not bona fide. The Tribunal, after considering various Supreme Court decisions on limitation and condonation of delay, found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a cogent reason for the inordinate delay.

The Tribunal held that the trust's objects were largely charitable for the general public, and the CIT(Exemption) erred in invoking section 13(1)(b) at the stage of granting registration. The denial of registration under section 12AB and consequently under section 80G(5) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the trust's objects were largely charitable for the general public, and the CIT(Exemption) erred in invoking section 13(1)(b) at the stage of granting registration. The denial of registration under section 12AB and consequently under section 80G(5) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay in filing appeals, finding it unintentional. It observed that the Ld. CIT(E) passed the orders without adequately considering the details submitted by the appellants and without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principle of *audi alteram partem*. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(E)'s orders and remitted all five cases back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration and a fresh order, after granting the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding it unintentional. It held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the trusts and without properly considering the details already submitted. Citing the principle of 'audi alteram partem', the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded all five cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with directions to provide the appellant-trusts a proper opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay in filing the appeals, noting it was unintentional and due to the previous CA's mistake. It held that the CIT(E) erred by rejecting the applications without considering submitted details and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, violating the principle of audi alteram partem. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted all five cases back for fresh consideration and orders after giving the assessee-trusts a fair hearing.

The Tribunal condoned a 56-day delay in filing the appeals, deeming it unintentional. It found that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the trusts and without adequately considering the submitted details, thus violating the principle of *audi alteram partem*. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted all five matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with directions to provide adequate and reasonable opportunities of hearing to the appellants.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the 56-day delay in filing appeals, noting it was neither deliberate nor intentional and emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail. The ITAT found that the CIT(E) had violated the principle of audi alteram partem by not providing the trusts a proper opportunity of hearing and by not considering all submitted details. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded all five cases for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to provide adequate opportunities of hearing to the appellants.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee provided some details, complete documentation like PAN and confirmations from parties were lacking. However, considering the minor variation in cash deposits compared to the previous year, the Tribunal accepted the source of Rs. 10,00,000/- of the cash deposit. The addition of Rs. 1,52,700/- was sustained.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on non-compliance without sufficient opportunity for the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest the case on merit.

The Tribunal observed that no specific inquiry was made by the AO regarding the applicability of Section 23(5) of the Act concerning notional rent on unsold stock-in-trade. The PCIT found this to be an omission, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal agreed that there was a lack of inquiry by the AO on this aspect.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear and submit evidence during assessment and appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, allowing the assessee to present supporting evidence. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of restricting additions to 6% of bogus purchases has been consistently decided by various Benches of the ITAT and upheld by the jurisdictional High Courts, including the Gujarat High Court in the case of Surya Impex. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 6% of the impugned purchases.

The Tribunal held that the information used to reopen the assessment was already available to the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings. Reopening based on information that was already on record and using it after a considerable time lapse was considered a change of opinion, which is not permissible. Therefore, the notice for reopening and the reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition for bogus purchases to 6% of the total creditors, amounting to Rs. 6,31,668/-, instead of Rs. 15,86,728/- sustained by the CIT(A). Regarding the addition for unaccounted stock, the Tribunal confirmed the finding of the CIT(A) and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee due to lack of verifiable evidence and non-audit of the relevant accounts.

The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee's failure to comply with notices was noted, but the Tribunal held that an opportunity of hearing should have been provided.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's detailed submission was filed on the same day the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without considering it. Emphasizing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 48 days, finding it neither intentional nor deliberate and constituting sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in ignoring the struck-off portion of clause 4(13) of the trust deed and wrongly concluded that the trust was not for charitable purposes. The Tribunal noted that the trust had incurred significant expenses on medical relief and Goushala donations, and no expenses were incurred on religious activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 48 days, finding it neither intentional nor deliberate and constituting sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a senior citizen of 66 years of age. Considering the facts and the assessee's submission regarding incorrect email communication leading to non-appearance before the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. This applied to both the quantum additions and the penalty proceedings. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had remained non-compliant throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and had not furnished any details. Therefore, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal, to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund, as a condition for setting aside the matter for de-novo consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any justifiable reason for the inordinate delay of over 8 years in filing the appeal against the section 263 order. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. For the second appeal concerning the CIT(A) order, the Tribunal agreed to restore the matter for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that while there was no dispute about the purchase and sale dates, both lower authorities found no agricultural activity conducted on the land. Given the assessee's death during appellate proceedings and the need for a fair hearing, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The CIT(A) has the power to enhance the assessment under Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. However, Section 251(2) mandates providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant before any enhancement.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) denied the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing, rejected additional evidence submission under Rule 46A, and refused a remand report. Concluding that principles of natural justice were violated, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, allowing the assessee to place supporting evidence on record.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's advanced age, her husband's recent passing, and the inadvertent non-appearance due to the accountant's oversight. Considering these factors and the substantial additions, the Tribunal decided that, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo consideration to allow the assessee an opportunity to present her case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any justifiable reason for the inordinate delay of over 8 years in filing the appeal against the section 263 order. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. For the second appeal concerning the CIT(A) order, the Tribunal agreed to restore the matter for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in a hurried manner without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal felt that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.