ITAT Varanasi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently filed under the wrong section due to a typographical error. It was held that the matter should be restored to the CIT(Exemption) to consider the application as if it were filed under the correct section.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised, which included procedural irregularities in the reassessment proceedings and lack of opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of sundry creditors under Section 68 and the partial deletion of business expenditure without sufficient evidence were not maintainable. However, considering the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23B) and its past difficulties with electronic proceedings, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's lack of familiarity with e-proceedings. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment to allow the assessee to present evidence explaining the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the books of accounts submitted by the assessee before treating the cash deposits as unexplained. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted due to subsequent compliance by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's counsel's erroneous advice. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide evidence for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and to explain the cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay, including the illness of the Chartered Accountant's mother and a medical emergency of the representative, warranted a fresh consideration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions after admitting additional evidence and obtaining a remand report. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions were indeed conducted by AOPs and the income was offered to tax in their hands, and that similar claims were accepted in other cases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. Granting one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the nature and source of the deposit would serve the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the books of accounts submitted by the assessee before treating the cash deposits as unexplained. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted due to subsequent compliance by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to produce evidence to explain the cash deposits in their bank account related to their banking correspondent activities.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the AO for fresh examination of the assessee's books. It directed the AO to consider the documentation for the gift from the father, finding it compelling. However, the addition for capital amount was upheld as the confirmations were found to be meaningless.

The Tribunal noted that the AO relied solely on initial SFT information which was later rectified. The assessee provided a sale deed and revised 26AS, which the AO did not have access to. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on liberal grounds, noting the assessee's claim of illness. The Tribunal found that the assessee, due to non-compliance and lack of awareness of notices, could not present facts to the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the application was filed under the wrong section (80G(5)(ii) instead of 80G(5)(iii)). However, to provide relief, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application as filed under the correct section and decide accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to demonstrate that the bank deposits were from business turnover, rather than being unexplained money.

The Tribunal noted that the incorrect email ID prevented the assessee from receiving notices. It held that restoring the matter to the AO for de novo assessment and deleting the penalty was in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the incorrect email ID prevented the assessee from receiving notices. It held that restoring the matter to the AO for de novo assessment and deleting the penalty was in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to provide documentation to explain the cash deposits from its Khadi and Village Industries business.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to technical issues with the e-filing portal. It held that the CIT(Exemption) should have treated the application as filed under the correct section, given the assessee's existing 12A registration and the CIT's satisfaction with the assessee's activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. It held that the Assessing Officer was obliged to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer when the assessee objected to the stamp duty valuation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish evidence to explain the cash deposits, which are claimed to be from the sale of Vodafone top-ups and recharge coupons.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the bank account ownership. The AO was directed to collect KYC documents from banks and verify PAN allotment details. Penalty proceedings were also remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal held that factual aspects regarding separate books of account for incidental activities and the utilization of funds for charitable purposes require examination. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the bank account ownership. The AO was directed to collect KYC documents from banks and verify PAN allotment details. Penalty proceedings were also remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the bank account ownership. The AO was directed to collect KYC documents from banks and verify PAN allotment details. Penalty proceedings were also remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the bank account ownership. The AO was directed to collect KYC documents from banks and verify PAN allotment details. Penalty proceedings were also remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the bank account ownership. The AO was directed to collect KYC documents from banks and verify PAN allotment details. Penalty proceedings were also remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance in the first appellate proceedings, decided to grant one final opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The case was restored to the First Appellate Authority with this direction.

The Tribunal restored the file to the First Appellate Authority with a direction to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. If the delay is condoned, the appeal is to be decided on merits.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence showing the assessee was seriously ill and could not represent his case. Considering the interest of natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to explain the cash deposits, set aside the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The case was restored to the AO with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present her case and refer the property valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's non-compliance and the interest of substantial justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the bank transactions. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case with necessary evidence, with a caution to comply with the AO's directions.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69A without thoroughly examining VAT returns and other statutory documents was not justified. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after verifying the reconciliation of bank deposits with sales.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the first appeal and to be heard on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities were ex-parte and that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the NFAC's orders were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the orders were ex-parte and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were set aside and restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that since the Department had accepted the assessee's agricultural income of Rs. 12.15 lakhs during the assessment, it could not subsequently treat the same cash realization as unexplained. This would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and restored the case to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case and produce relevant documents.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence, with a caution to comply with the AO's directions.

The Tribunal held that a voluntary surrender of income to buy peace and avoid litigation, without any independent evidence of deliberate concealment by the revenue, does not automatically justify the levy of penalty. The penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal, and the revenue failed to discharge its onus of proving conscious suppression.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal. It restored the matter to the NFAC to provide the assessee one final opportunity to present its case, emphasizing the need for substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that the cash payment for electricity bills, though made to the landlord, was essentially for a government electricity department and thus Section 40A(3) was not attracted. The addition under Section 69A was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to explain.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's ex-parte order due to violation of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.