ITAT Surat Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a reply to the AO, which was not considered while passing the ex-parte order under section 144. The Ld. AR also stated that the reply and documents submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) were not considered, and the appeal was dismissed without a remand report. The assessee's business activities were explained, involving collection of payments and subsequent transfer to the company, with the assessee earning commission. Considering these facts, the Tribunal was inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The issue regarding the invocation of section 115BBE was not expressly decided as the matter was remanded. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have filed Form-10 on 16.09.2017 for AY 2016-17 for accumulating Rs. 43,60,000/-. However, upon perusal of the Forms filed, it was observed that the Form-10 filed for AY 2016-17 showed an amount set apart of only Rs. 19,60,000/- with the accumulation period ending on 31.03.2021. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that for accumulations relating to the financial year 2016-17, the assessee had a time window till 31.03.2023 to utilize the income. The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective in nature and would be applicable only to fresh accumulations from assessment year 2023-24 onwards. Therefore, the amendment did not debar the assessee from availing the time window for existing accumulations. The Tribunal also noted that for the impugned assessment year, no addition could be made for accumulation of income pertaining to financial year 2017-18, as the assessee continued to be guided by the provisions existing at the relevant time, including the six-year time window. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been adequately heard and that new submissions were being made. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the material, decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand both matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the addition was covered by increased agricultural income and bank withdrawals, and that agricultural income was accepted in a subsequent assessment year. For AY 2017-18, the assessee requested another opportunity. The Tribunal found it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the AO. The assessee is directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The AO is at liberty to pass appropriate orders if the assessee fails to comply. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause due to the actions of their tax consultant, who failed to provide access to crucial communications and kept the assessee in the dark regarding proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee suffered due to the mistake of their appointed representative. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that while the Ld. CIT(A) issued multiple notices, there was no finding in the impugned order that these notices were properly served on the appellant. Observing the lack of proper service of notices and considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in future hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The issue of the addition under Section 69A was not decided on merits but was to be adjudicated by the AO upon remand.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to payment of costs, considering the principles of natural justice and substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to be more vigilant and cooperative.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay of 1261 days and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not well-educated and lacked sufficient knowledge of income tax matters, and that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. Citing the principles of natural justice and the expression 'sufficient cause' under Section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal emphasized preferring substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the case on merit. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the 'Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF)'. The assessee was also directed to be more careful and furnish necessary details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee had not complied with notices, but also acknowledged the possibility of a genuine oversight regarding communication preferences. For ITA No. 385/SRT/2025, the CIT(A) order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to payment of costs. For ITA No. 386/SRT/2025, the penalty was restored for fresh adjudication. For ITA No. 387/SRT/2025, the penalty was partly allowed, with a direction for a reduced penalty.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and ex-parte orders at both assessment and CIT(A) levels. Despite this, considering the interest of justice and the need for a fair hearing, an opportunity was granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to comply with three notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in an ex-parte order. The Tribunal observed that there was no proper adjudication of the case. Accepting the request of the Ld. AR, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment was ex-parte under section 144. In the interest of justice and considering the facts, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The issue of taxability under section 115BBE and the calculation of interest were not adjudicated on merits as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) relied on decisions of the ITAT Surat Bench in Ravi Mahexa vs. ITO and Hasmukh Kanjiobhai Tadhani vs. ITO, and ITAT Mumbai Benches in Ajit Bapu Satam vs. ITO. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 1,65,00,100/- during demonetization, claiming it was from bank withdrawals. The assessee provided cash books for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 and bank statements showing withdrawals. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had sufficient sources for the cash deposits, as evidenced by the cash book, and that the AO could not disprove the cash balance. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO could not reject the cash book without proper reasons and that the cash deposited could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and confirmed it. Grounds (i) to (iii) of the Revenue's appeal were related to the addition, while grounds (iv) and (v) were general.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025, noting the revenue's lack of serious objection. Regarding the ex-parte order by the NFAC, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that notices were not received at the physical address mentioned in Form-35, despite being sent via email. Observing that the Assessing Officer (AO) and NFAC issued notices but the assessee did not comply, the Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be met by re-adjudicating the issue afresh by the AO, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within two weeks. This order sets aside the CIT(A)'s order and remits the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish additional evidence. Consequently, the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025 were allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 386/SRT/2025, as the quantum additions were restored to the AO, the penalty under section 271AAC(1) was also restored for fresh adjudication, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 387/SRT/2025, the Tribunal noted the penalty was for non-compliance due to a tax consultant's mistake. It directed the AO to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(d), deleting penalties for two defaults and imposing for one, thus partly allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025, noting the revenue's lack of serious objection. Regarding the ex-parte order by the NFAC, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that notices were not received at the physical address mentioned in Form-35, despite being sent via email. Observing that the Assessing Officer (AO) and NFAC issued notices but the assessee did not comply, the Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be met by re-adjudicating the issue afresh by the AO, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within two weeks. This order sets aside the CIT(A)'s order and remits the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish additional evidence. Consequently, the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025 were allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 386/SRT/2025, as the quantum additions were restored to the AO, the penalty under section 271AAC(1) was also restored for fresh adjudication, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 387/SRT/2025, the Tribunal noted the penalty was for non-compliance due to a tax consultant's mistake. It directed the AO to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(d), deleting penalties for two defaults and imposing for one, thus partly allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the entire purchase could not be disallowed and restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, representing the estimated profit. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as it was based on an estimated addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence regarding the credits in their bank account. The new plea about the account being in the wife's name was not substantiated with necessary documents. The Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to be devoid of merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence regarding the credits in their bank account. The new plea about the account being in the wife's name was not substantiated with necessary documents. The Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to be devoid of merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence regarding the credits in their bank account. The new plea about the account being in the wife's name was not substantiated with necessary documents. The Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to be devoid of merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence regarding the credits in their bank account. The new plea about the account being in the wife's name was not substantiated with necessary documents. The Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to be devoid of merits.

The Tribunal held that the entire purchase could not be disallowed and restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, representing the estimated profit. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as it was based on an estimated addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the previous tax consultant's error. The Tribunal held that the Surat District Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a co-operative society. Relying on decisions of the Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal concluded that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 27.07.2022 was beyond the permissible time-barring date of 13.06.2022. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found that limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction and such a defect is not curable, making the AO's assumption of jurisdiction invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence regarding the credits in their bank account. The new plea about the account being in the wife's name was not substantiated with necessary documents. The Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to be devoid of merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to raise additional grounds, stating they were legal in nature and went to the root of the case, citing Supreme Court judgments. Given that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal deemed it in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal deleted the penalty on the addition of Rs. 23,41,300/- as the addition itself was deleted in the quantum appeal. For other confirmed additions, the Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the penalty appeal was decided without providing an opportunity to present the case after quantum relief.

The Tribunal held that since the facts were identical to the earlier assessment year and no distinguishing factors were presented, the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT was binding. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and found it relevant and crucial for proper adjudication. Since the Assessing Officer (AO) had not examined these documents, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in the money transfer business, and the cash book and bank statements demonstrated that the deposits were out of regular cash withdrawals made during the course of business. The revenue did not point out any discrepancies or adverse material. Since the AO accepted the commission income and did not dispute the genuineness of business receipts or withdrawals, and the assessee's explanation was supported by documentary evidence, the addition was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that since the facts were identical to the earlier assessment year and the previous ITAT decision was binding, the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed. The addition was restricted to Rs. 25,00,000/-.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to raise additional grounds, stating they were legal in nature and went to the root of the case, citing Supreme Court judgments. Given that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal deemed it in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to raise additional grounds, stating they were legal in nature and went to the root of the case, citing Supreme Court judgments. Given that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal deemed it in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since the facts were identical to the earlier assessment year and no distinguishing factors were presented, the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT was binding. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), applying the principle of substantial justice based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case, without commenting on the merits of the dispute.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty on the addition of Rs. 23,41,300/- as the addition itself was deleted in the quantum appeal. For other confirmed additions, the Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the penalty appeal was decided without a proper opportunity for the assessee after the quantum relief was granted.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of substantial justice over technicalities and the explanation of sufficient cause for the delay, condoned the delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to a lack of proper representation, and thus, one more opportunity was granted.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the insertion of Section 36(1)(xvii), the disallowance of the excess sugarcane price paid to members, which is in the nature of profit distribution, is upheld. However, for assessment year 2016-17, where a specific government approval for the price was produced, the disallowance was deleted. The matter was remanded for re-computation of the disallowance in earlier years based on a specific methodology.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalties levied under sections 271D and 271E.

The Tribunal held that the allowability of the additional sugarcane price depends on whether it was approved by the State government or competent authorities, distinguishing it from profit distribution. The Tribunal noted that the FRP regime differs from older pricing mechanisms.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalties levied under sections 271D and 271E.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimate or ad-hoc basis without concrete evidence of concealment. The restricted disallowance, representing estimated profit, does not fulfill the essential condition for invoking the penalty section.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances sustained by the CIT(A) in some cases, while dismissing the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The decision considered the Supreme Court's clarification in the Tasgaon Taluka case and found the CIT(A)'s approach reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the additional sugarcane price paid by the assessee societies over and above the FRP was not an allowable business expenditure. It was considered a distribution of profits, especially since it was paid to members and non-members at different rates and determined after the year-end.

The Tribunal held that the allowability of additional sugarcane price paid over and above FRP depends on whether it was approved by the State government or competent authority. The reliance on older legal frameworks or decisions not considering the FRP regime was deemed misplaced.

The Tribunal held that the legal position is governed by the Supreme Court's ratio in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd., which mandates segregating business-based cane price from cooperative surplus allocation or membership incentives. The CIT(A) correctly concluded that while the major portion of the cane purchase price is allowable business expenditure under section 37(1), the differential element paid exclusively to registered members and certain cane development expenditures not extended to nominal suppliers indicated member-linked benefits. The CIT(A) quantified this differential based on actual price variations and invoices. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) found no price distinction and deleted the entire disallowance, a finding the Revenue did not rebut. The assessee failed to provide further evidence to demonstrate that the retained disallowance in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 was incorrect or to validate the differential pricing. Therefore, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s conclusions well-reasoned, factually supported, and legally sustainable, warranting no interference. All grounds raised in the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate claims regarding books of accounts, book results, cash receipts, and discounts received. No new evidence was presented to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued beyond the permissible 'surviving period' as per Supreme Court rulings and also lacked the mandatory approval from the competent authority. Therefore, the notice was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the allowability of additional sugarcane price depends on whether it was approved by the State government and was part of a commercial pricing mechanism. It distinguished previous cases based on specific factual findings and the applicable legal regime.

The Tribunal held that the allowability of additional sugarcane price depends on whether it was approved by the relevant state authorities and formed part of a commercial pricing mechanism. It distinguished previous cases where such approval was evident.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the insertion of Section 36(1)(xvii), the disallowance of the excess sugarcane price paid to members, which is in the nature of profit distribution, is upheld. However, for assessment year 2016-17, where a specific government approval for the price was produced, the disallowance was deleted. The matter was remanded for re-computation of the disallowance in earlier years based on a specific methodology.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the insertion of Section 36(1)(xvii), the disallowance of the excess sugarcane price paid to members, which is in the nature of profit distribution, is upheld. However, for assessment year 2016-17, where a specific government approval for the price was produced, the disallowance was deleted. The matter was remanded for re-computation of the disallowance in earlier years based on a specific methodology.