ITAT Varanasi Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained investment to the Assessing Officer for the assessee to submit evidence of loans taken from his mother. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that deposits were from fertilizer sales to members and payments to IFFCO. Considering the interest of justice and the need for proper evidence, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that deposits were from fertilizer sales to members and payments to IFFCO. Considering the interest of justice and the need for proper evidence, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal in a summary manner without deciding on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that non-commencement of activities due to unavailability of funds does not necessarily cast doubt on the genuineness of the trust. The assessee should be given an opportunity to explain its case.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, directing the CIT to reconsider the applications. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity to explain its case and provide necessary verification.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, directing the CIT to reconsider the applications. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity to explain its case and provide necessary verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's previous counsel was unable to represent her due to a serious illness, which prevented the submission of crucial evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to allow the assessee to present these additional evidences.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without considering the legal grounds raised by the assessee. The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present further information.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to specify the required documents. The assessee will then have an opportunity to submit them or provide explanations, after which the CIT(E) will make a fresh decision.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was due to the lack of reasonable opportunity provided to the assessee at both the AO and CIT(A) levels.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be admitted and decided on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as it was time-barred. The assessee was given liberty to seek restoration if sufficient cause for the delay and non-appearance could be shown.

The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order. This was to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was due to the lack of reasonable opportunity provided to the assessee at both the AO and CIT(A) levels.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass speaking orders on merits, even in case of non-prosecution. The impugned orders were set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to pass de novo appellate orders after providing a reasonable opportunity and ensuring adherence to Section 250(6).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass speaking orders on merits, even in case of non-prosecution. The impugned orders were set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to pass de novo appellate orders after providing a reasonable opportunity and ensuring adherence to Section 250(6).

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's grounds regarding the delay and the lack of proper opportunity.