ITAT Varanasi Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal found that the assessees had not been granted adequate opportunity to present their case, especially considering their long-standing operations and prior provisional registration. Therefore, the matters were restored back to the CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO was statutorily bound to refer the matter to the DVO when the stamp duty value exceeded the sale consideration, especially when the assessee did not receive the additional consideration. The AO failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the difference. Therefore, the AO should refer the matter to the DVO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons for non-compliance due to administrative issues valid. It also noted that the CIT(A) passed the order without proper application of mind, mixing up facts and failing to examine the assessee's exemption claim.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions made solely due to lack of vouchers or failure to satisfy the AO about accounts are outside the scope of 153A. Some additions were deleted, while one was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to provide all necessary materials. The Assessing Officer was instructed to pass a fresh order after considering the provided material and the relevant government notifications regarding the use of specified bank notes for mobile top-ups.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was a non-filer, the opening capital might represent accumulation from previous years. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to allow the assessee to produce evidence substantiating the source of opening capital.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to invalid approval under Section 151. Furthermore, the addition of cash deposits was deleted as the account was not operated by the assessee during that period.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions made solely due to lack of vouchers or failure to satisfy the AO about accounts are outside the scope of 153A. Some additions were deleted, while one was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the AO had accepted that the assessee was not conducting individual contract business and all contractual work was done through the partnership firm, disallowing contractual expenses in the assessee's hands was not maintainable. The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the AO had accepted that the assessee was not conducting individual contract business and all contractual work was done through the partnership firm, disallowing contractual expenses in the assessee's hands was not maintainable. The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present evidence, emphasizing strict compliance in future proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the AO. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present evidence, specifically certificates from Sanjivani Vikas Foundation and the State Bank of India, to substantiate the cash withdrawals.

The Tribunal found that the AO's order was ex-parte and the NFAC had not properly adjudicated the issues. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the case to the AO to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but decided to grant one final opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The matter was restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present his case and produce necessary evidence for the cash deposits. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A ex-parte, primarily due to the absence of a reply from the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file. The CIT(E) is directed to consider the application for registration under Section 12A after giving the assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and to consider the requisite documents. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order rejecting a registration application without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing is unsustainable and requires a remand for proper adjudication. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the charitable activities or the alleged business activities, as the primary issue was procedural.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records with liberty to reapproach if the scheme application is not accepted.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the respondent had no objection. The appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes with liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted.