ITAT Surat Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal noted that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the additions on which the penalty was levied were purely estimated additions. Following its own previous decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, the Tribunal found that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the impugned penalty was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's agricultural income and evidence like sales invoices, agricultural produce invoices, and earlier years' agricultural income proof. The deposits were linked to agricultural activities and loan accounts, which were not properly appreciated. Therefore, the addition and the consequential penalty were not justifiable.

The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, which held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the penalty levied in this case was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the excess payment for sugarcane was made to members and rightly distributed. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition regarding these payments was upheld. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the excess payment for sugarcane to members was a distribution among them and not deductible. However, based on the furnished details of payments to members and nominal members, the Tribunal found that the excess payment was rightly distributed and the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) should not have been denied. The Tribunal did not delve into the other grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence of agricultural income, including sales invoices and proof of earlier year's agricultural income, which constituted the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the additions and penalty were not justifiable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. To serve the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimation basis. Following its own coordinate benches' decisions in similar cases of sister concerns, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns. It held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimation basis. Therefore, the penalty was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimation basis. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases involving the assessee's sister concerns where penalties were deleted on identical grounds.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimation basis. Following its own coordinate bench decisions in the cases of the assessee's sister concerns, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. Regarding salary expenses, the assessee provided employee-wise details and there was no evidence of non-genuine payments or diversion of funds. For foreign expenses, the Tribunal found them to be reimbursements not attracting TDS, and non-deduction of TDS was not the sole criterion for disallowance. The addition on account of undisclosed receipts was also deleted as the assessee provided evidence and claimed TDS credit.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings, finding that the Assessing Officer had a 'reason to believe' income had escaped assessment based on tangible material from GST search and statements. The Tribunal also upheld the addition on account of job work charges and the valuation of jewellery, finding the approach of the lower authorities to be fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the Assessing Officer had 'reason to believe' income had escaped assessment, based on tangible material collected during the GST search, and the assessee failed to substantiate claims of coercion or undue pressure regarding the retracted statement. The Tribunal also found the additions on account of job work charges and the valuation of jewellery to be reasonable and substantiated by the revenue authorities.

The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were valid, rejecting the assessee's arguments about the validity of the notice and the officer's independent application of mind. The Tribunal also upheld the addition on account of job work charges and the valuation of jewellery in the hands of the assessee, finding the authorities' actions fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals. It found that the trust's activities, primarily executing government contracts, constituted business and were not in the nature of general public utility or charitable activities as required for exemption.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities, particularly executing contracts for irrigation projects, constituted business and were not charitable in nature. Therefore, exemption under Section 11 was rightly denied.

The Tribunal held that the addition for trading profit was not substantiated by evidence, as the assessee never acquired ownership, the agreements were not legally enforceable, and the transaction was cancelled. Similarly, additions for unexplained investments under section 69 were deleted as the jottings represented repayments related to the cancelled land deal and not unexplained investments by the assessee. Consequently, the penalty under section 271B, based on the disputed turnover, was also ordered to be obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof for the trading profit addition as the transaction was not proven to be completed or profitable for the assessee, who was legally barred from purchasing agricultural land. The additions for unexplained investments were also deleted as the jottings pertained to repayments on a cancelled deal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a licensed commission agent, provided sufficient evidence (mandi licence, receipts, farmer affidavits, revenue records) proving the payments were made to farmers for agricultural produce sold on their behalf. Hence, Section 40A(3) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were supported by opening cash balance and cash sales, as reflected in the audited books of account. The addition under section 68 was not sustainable as there was no adverse material to doubt the reliability of the books.

The Tribunal observed that neither the Assessing Officer (AO) nor the CIT(A) had provided proper opportunities to the assessee. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a money transfer agent for Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., and the cash deposits were related to this agency business. The assessee had offered the commission income for taxation, and the AO could not rebut the assessee's contentions during remand proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment.

The tribunal observed that the assessee, claiming to be an agriculturist, might not have had readily available documents during the assessment proceedings and that the CIT(A) had dismissed the additional evidence. To ensure justice, the tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to present his case and evidence before the CIT(A).

The tribunal noted that the assessee contended the cash deposits were withdrawals from her husband's bank account. To ensure justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for verification of the source of deposits in both the assessee's and her husband's accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee was indeed a money transfer agent and had offered the commission income for taxation. The AO's addition on account of cash deposits was deemed incorrect as the funds were substantiated.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Considering the circumstances, including the delay in filing the appeal due to communication issues, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not sustainable. The difference between the DVO's valuation and the purchase consideration was within the 10% tolerance band prescribed by law, and the property was purchased through a public auction, with no evidence of any undisclosed payment.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned subject to the payment of costs.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted due enquiry regarding the cash investment and had accepted the assessee's explanation in the absence of corroborative evidence, making it a plausible view. Similarly, for house property income, the AO had considered the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's order was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under section 263.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with notices and provide necessary documentation before both the lower authorities. However, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter for de novo assessment by the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to submit all relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C, the relevant date for computing the six-year period is when the seized material is handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the 'other person'. The assessment year 2014-15 was found to be beyond this permissible period, rendering the assessment order void.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under section 153C, the relevant date for computing the six-year period is the date when the seized material is handed over to the jurisdictional AO of the other person, not the date of the original search. As AY 2014-15 falls beyond this period, the assessment is barred by limitation.

The tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was invalid as it should have been issued under the Faceless Regime as per Section 151A. The reopening of assessment and subsequent actions were therefore challenged. The tribunal also noted grounds related to disallowance of cost of improvement and initiation of penalties under various sections.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 was beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were deemed void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unwarranted, noting the consistent agricultural income of the assessee in previous years ranged between Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 7 lakhs. The declared higher amount was considered a typographical error and the total income was revised accordingly.

The tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. Considering that the assessee missed a single notice, the tribunal decided to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued after April 1, 2021, was invalid as it was time-barred. This was in accordance with the proviso to Section 149(1) and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

The Tribunal held that based on CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022, issued pursuant to the Ashish Agarwal judgment, reassessment notices under Section 148 for AY 2014-15 could only be issued if the escaped income was Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Since the alleged escaped income was Rs. 48,72,642/-, which is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to produce any cogent material or evidence to establish that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration recorded in the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the source of their investment and that no evidence of 'on money' payment was brought on record. The Tribunal also noted that Section 56(2)(x)(b) was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's observation of no response from the assessee was incorrect. The Judicial Officer (JAO) was directed to consider the assessee's response and reconciliation statement, and then adjudicate the matter as per the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the cash deposits of Rs. 27,62,395/- by providing details of cash withdrawals, joint account usage, and insurance premium payments, which the CIT(A) had failed to consider. For credit entries, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained most of the entries, with only Rs. 59,000/- remaining un-explained. Consequently, the addition for cash deposits was deleted and the addition for credit entries was partly confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the new evidence submitted by the assessee (bank statements, agricultural land details, milk collection reports), remanded the quantum addition back to the AO for proper verification. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were held to be non-surviving.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering that new evidence was available and the previous authorities did not have a complete picture, remanded the quantum addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside.

The tribunal held that the assessee had indeed provided a response and clarification regarding the income mismatch. Therefore, the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) was directed to consider the assessee's response and the reconciliation statement before adjudicating the issue.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 27,62,395/- was not sustainable as the assessee provided details of withdrawals, joint account ownership with his brother, and receipts from clients for insurance premiums, which the CIT(A) had failed to consider. For the credit entries, the Tribunal found that most sources were explained, except for Rs. 59,000/-, leading to a partial confirmation of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting that crucial documents were not placed before the revenue authorities, remanded the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. Consequently, the penalty appeals were allowed as they did not survive without the quantum.