ITAT Surat Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions related to the same transactions were deleted by higher authorities, the protective additions were not sustainable. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of these protective additions was upheld.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to represent their case and for a fresh adjudication. This decision was made without prejudice to the merits of the case.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case. A cost was imposed on the assessee for delaying proceedings due to not intimating address change.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case. A cost was imposed on the assessee for delaying proceedings due to not intimating address change.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case with adequate opportunity. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee for delaying proceedings due to not intimating the change of address.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions related to the same transactions were deleted by higher authorities, the protective additions were not sustainable. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of these protective additions was upheld.

The Tribunal found that a majority of the cash deposits were made before the demonetization period, suggesting genuineness. However, it noted that the cash and petty cash book and bank entries required reconciliation.

The Tribunal held that the AO's view of estimating suppressed profit at 20% was a plausible view. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order dated 29.03.2017 was not legally sustainable because it was based on an assessment order that had been set aside. The Tribunal noted that fresh penalty proceedings were initiated in the subsequent assessment order.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in treating the gross agricultural income as income from other sources. However, the sharp increase in sale rate of sugarcane was deemed abnormal, leading to a remand.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal mechanically without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a chance to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (denovo assessment).