ITAT Surat Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 324 days, citing the assessee's sufficient cause, including a non-cooperative consultant, a recent family bereavement, and the disproportionate nature of the addition compared to the returned income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty matter was also restored back to the AO to be decided afresh along with the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request. Therefore, the prayer of the assessee for withdrawal was granted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 56(2)(x), increasing the tolerance limit to 10% for the difference between actual consideration and stamp duty value, is curative and retrospective in nature. Since the difference in this case was less than 10% of the consideration, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the Assessee's prayer for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted, there is no longer a basis for levying a penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty is to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on loans was not justifiable as the loans were given out of interest-free funds. The disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS was also not justified as the expenses were part of the assessee's business. The addition for cash expenses was also held to be not justified.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's counsel's submission regarding an oversight that led to the ex-parte dismissal. To ensure justice, the Tribunal imposed a cost on the assessee and directed the AO to provide another opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the sale deed was cancelled by a registered cancellation deed, the transaction of purchase did not take place. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act were not applicable.

The ITAT partly allowed the appeal, upholding an addition of Rs. 14,02,500/- for unexplained cash deposits while granting relief for Rs. 10,00,000/-. It also ruled that the amended Section 115BBE, effective from 15.12.2016, could not be applied to cash deposits made prior to that date.

The Tribunal, noting repeated non-compliance, imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee. Subject to this payment, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide another opportunity for the assessee to furnish evidence for the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the evidence of co-ownership. It also noted the statutory deduction available under section 57(iv) on such interest income. Accordingly, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on both issues.

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities failed to consider the evidence regarding co-ownership of the land and the assessee's share. It also noted the provision for a 50% deduction under section 57(iv) on such interest income. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a cash book and prior year's closing cash balance, to explain the cash payment for the car purchase. The AO's addition was made mechanically without properly considering the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without proper verification and application of mind. The assessee had actually made sales, and the profit thereon was already offered for taxation. Therefore, the additions were not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's appeal for the said assessment year was already allowed in the physical appeal proceedings, the subsequent dismissal of the online appeal by the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law. The impugned order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2024-25, there was no express bar in Section 87A or Section 111A denying rebate on tax payable on short-term capital gains under the new tax regime. The proposed amendment in the Finance Bill 2025, being prospective, reinforced this interpretation for the relevant year.

The Tribunal found that the notices of hearing were indeed sent to an incorrect email address, due to which the assessee could not represent its case before the CIT(A). Consequently, the impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the basis of the impugned addition was not sustained as the Tribunal itself had accepted that the deposits were collections from customers in the course of the assessee's profession as a freelancer/agent for financial schemes. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had offered commission income, albeit at a lesser rate. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional documents to the Tribunal and, in the interest of justice, imposed a cost on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the unsecured loan by providing the assessee with another opportunity of hearing.

The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and, finding that the pattern of inflow and outflow in bank accounts supported the assessee's explanation, deleted the addition. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the evidence substantiated the assessee's role as an intermediary and that the credits were explained.