ITAT Surat Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal examined the AO's addition of Rs. 66,52,25,000/- as undisclosed investment in plot No. 224. The assessee contested this, stating the documents were not seized from him and lacked specific details connecting them to the plot.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application due to the appellant not replying to a show-cause notice and considering two objects as religious. The appellant argued that the majority of objects were charitable and no religious expenses were incurred. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and the submissions of both parties, set aside the CIT(E)'s order.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of jewellery found during the search, considering VDIS declarations, ancestral will, and purchase bills. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to marriage expenses and land investment. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s sustained addition for unexplained jewellery, while dismissing the assessee's appeal regarding the validity of the assessment order.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submissions regarding the validity of seized documents and the attribution of transactions to specific plots. The CIT(A) had confirmed a portion of the addition related to 'on-money' for the project after considering disclosures under IDS-2016.

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Ashwinkumar Arban Co-operative Society Ltd. and Rajkot Lodhika Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., held that a cooperative bank is a cooperative society. Therefore, interest earned by a cooperative society from its investment in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of jewellery found during the search, considering VDIS declarations, ancestral will, and purchase bills. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass an order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of non-compliance. The Tribunal found that principles of natural justice require another opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including the confirmation of undisclosed interest payments, deletion of additions made under Section 69A and 69B, and the validity of block assessment orders. The specific outcome for each appeal is detailed within the full judgment.

The Tribunal held that seized documents without evidentiary value and not forming part of regular books of account cannot be the sole basis for addition. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer cannot condone such delays, but the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) can. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction for the assessee to seek condonation of delay from the CIT(E) or PCIT(E).

The Tribunal found that the factual aspect regarding the precise date of the assessee's reply and its acknowledgment required verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination of the limitation issue and other grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had issued notices, but the assessee failed to provide complete details and documentary evidence. The assessee argued that the matter was decided ex parte and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, considering that the assessee is now ready with the necessary documents and in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s order.

The Tribunal found that similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee in their own case, where such compensation was treated as a capital receipt and not includible in income.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal regarding the AO issuing notices from a non-jurisdictional office and the absence of a notice u/s 143(2). Both parties agreed that the matter should be set aside to the AO for a de novo assessment. The Tribunal clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal noted that the delay was not deliberate and that the notices were indeed sent to a wrong email address. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that the substantive additions in the hands of M/s I.B. Enterprise and M/s Dashmesh Developers were confirmed by the Tribunal and CIT(A) respectively. Therefore, there was no basis for confirming the protective additions made by the AO. The order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.

The assessee failed to provide any explanation or supporting documents for the cash deposit and other credits amounting to Rs. 1,17,98,862/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and lack of evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the Section 148 notice hinges on the exact date of the assessee's final response. Since this factual aspect was not conclusively established, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the 11-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing it as a bona fide cause in the interest of substantial justice. The principles of natural justice were considered paramount. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A)'s file.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) is required to dispose of the appeal on merits, even in case of non-appearance. Dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merits is contrary to the statute. The matter was remitted to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P is not allowable if the return of income is not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1), as per Section 80A(5). Furthermore, the assessee failed to substantiate that the interest income was earned from its core business activity of extending credit to members.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate. The order was passed without due appreciation of the materials on record.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had issued notices, but the assessee failed to provide complete details and documentary evidence. The assessee argued that the matter was decided ex parte and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, considering that the assessee is now ready with the necessary documents and in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s order.

The Tribunal, following a Delhi High Court dictum, found gaps in the factual inquiry at the assessment stage. It held that the CIT(A) should not have simply deleted additions without ensuring proper inquiry, and directed a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's delay in filing the appeal was due to notices being sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing them from accessing the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice under Section 148 were barred by limitation. The notice was issued beyond the permissible period under the amended law, making it unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and source of the purchases. The approach of the CIT(A) in mechanically following an earlier decision without considering High Court judgments was not sustained.

The PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry and verification regarding the stock discrepancy. The case was remanded for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's cause to be reasonable and genuine. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while there is no statutory bar to deciding a penalty appeal before the quantum appeal, it is desirable for the penalty appeal to await the outcome of the quantum appeal. The penalty is consequential to the addition made in the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s action of sustaining the addition of ₹13,49,835/-. The assessee's explanation that the deposits were from cash sales and withdrawals was not supported by evidence and was inconsistent with normal business practices.

The Tribunal found a contradiction between the assessee's earlier letter and a later affidavit regarding the share transactions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the purchase, source of funds, and veracity of the statements.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's application for condonation of delay afresh, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the appeal will be adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the relevant material from the search and was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) (now 56(2)(x)) is applicable from AY 2017-18. Since the agreement was made on 31.03.2017 with payment through banking channels and a stamp duty valuation lower than the consideration on that date, the transaction falls outside the mischief of Section 56(2)(x).

The Tribunal, considering the principles of substantial justice and fair play, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on technical grounds, specifically regarding the filling of Form 35, and that no proper notice was served at the assessee's residential address. The Tribunal found that the matter was not properly adjudicated.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, relying on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd., stating that filing the return within the due date is mandatory for claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A. The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) cannot condone the delay, the AO may consider condonation under section 119(2)(b) if there is a reasonable cause and genuine hardship.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds raised by the assessee, which included challenging the reopening of assessment and the application of Section 50C. The CIT(A)'s powers are coterminous with the AO, and it should have considered these grounds.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry by calling for details and examining the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the claim for additional depreciation. The AO had formed a possible view based on the information provided. The PCIT's opinion that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was based on a different view, which is not sufficient for revision under Section 263 if the AO has made a plausible inquiry and formed a possible opinion.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the loss claimed from penny stock trading was manipulated and thus liable to be disallowed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the loss claimed from penny stock trading was manipulated and thus liable to be disallowed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the deletion of additions related to the shopping centre and flats, finding no infirmity. However, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal concerning the alleged loan, confirming the CIT(A)'s addition.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligent behavior and failure to respond to notices or provide documents. However, considering the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case before the lower authority.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the time limit available, as per Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Therefore, the notice and the consequential reassessment order were considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) suffered from legal infirmity due to lack of sufficient opportunity to the legal heir of the deceased assessee and non-consideration of valid submissions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee died during the appellate proceedings, and no effective opportunity was granted to the legal heir to represent the case. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26/04/2021 was invalid as it was issued after the prescribed date of 01/04/2021, citing Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment order under Section 147 was quashed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as relevant and crucial for proper adjudication. Both issues, concerning unexplained investment and disallowed exempt income, were found to require fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26/04/2021 was invalid as it was issued after the prescribed date of 01/04/2021, citing Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment order under Section 147 was quashed.