ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal found that the assessee had specifically opted out of email communication for notices in "Form 35" and provided a physical address. Despite this, the CIT(A) sent all notices electronically via ITBA and failed to serve physical copies, thereby denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as incriminating material from a third-party search mandated proceedings under Section 153C. It further held that the Section 69A addition was unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence, the nature of the "dumb" document, and the violation of natural justice by denying cross-examination, as no cash was found in the assessee's possession.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid for failing to provide the statutory minimum of 7 days for the assessee to furnish a reply, violating principles of natural justice. Citing a High Court precedent, the Tribunal quashed the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) and the Section 148 notice, remanding the matter back to the A.O. to provide a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that a belated return of income, even if delayed, does not render it invalid or non-est in the eyes of law; it only attracts interest under Section 234A. The AO wrongly treated the return as invalid and improperly dispensed with the mandatory requirement of issuing a Section 143(2) notice. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 144 without a valid Section 143(2) notice lacked jurisdiction and was deemed void.

The Tribunal held that a belated return filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice is a valid return of income, even if delayed, attracting interest under Section 234A. The Assessing Officer erroneously treated this return as invalid and wrongly dispensed with the mandatory requirement of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The absence of a Section 143(2) notice renders the assessment order void for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, and this defect cannot be cured by Section 292BB.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting valid reasons and adopting a liberal approach. The tribunal found that despite the assessee opting out of email service in Form-35 and providing a physical address, no physical notices were served by the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for re-adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Despite the assessee's repeated non-compliance at all levels, the Tribunal took a lenient view and granted a final opportunity. The case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all requisite details and documentary evidence.

For AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 336/Viz/2025), the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by notice under Section 148 dated 18.04.2022 were without jurisdiction, as the time limit for issuing such notice had expired on 31.03.2022 under the unamended Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, relying on various Supreme Court precedents. For AY 2018-19 (ITA Nos. 337 & 338/Viz/2025, quantum and penalty appeals), the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing on merits, acknowledging that ex-parte orders were passed due to non-appearance.

For AY 2015-16 (ITA 336), the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by notice dated 18.04.2022 were without jurisdiction and barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(b) of the unamended Act, relying on Supreme Court precedents. For AY 2018-19 (ITA 337 and 338), the Tribunal remitted both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard, with a caution to cooperate.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the ‘Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and filed the necessary settlement form, and the Ld. DR raised no objection.

The Tribunal determined that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay of 366 days did not constitute 'reasonable and sufficient cause' as required by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the plea for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly in the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on the available records.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, asserting that a mere clerical error in claiming exemption should not deny a rightful entitlement. It remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to entertain the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and decide it in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A after the AO failed to furnish a remand report despite multiple reminders, concluding the AO had no objections. The CIT(A) found the assessee's books of account to be audited with no defects, rendering Section 69 inapplicable, and deleted the additions, including the brokerage. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's non-response justified admitting evidence and that the additions were rightly deleted.

The Tribunal determined that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on 28.07.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 was beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. As per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (amended by Finance Act, 2021), such a notice required prior approval from a higher specified authority (Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General/Chief Commissioner/Director General). Since the AO had only obtained approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, who was not the correctly specified authority, the Tribunal found the assumption of jurisdiction invalid and quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the additions. It found that the assessee failed to provide cogent documentary evidence to substantiate the sources of the Rs. 14,93,000/- cash deposits, the Rs. 85,512/- rental income, and the Rs. 4,20,000/- bank credits, thereby confirming the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent documentary evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was upheld. However, regarding the additional ground on the rate of tax under section 115BBE, the Tribunal followed the High Court of Madras's decision and directed the AO to apply the pre-amended rate of 30%.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2015-16, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Ashish Agarwal, Rajeev Bansal, Deepak Steel and Power Ltd.), the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were without jurisdiction and time-barred as per the unamended Section 149(1)(b) and thus quashed the assessment. For AY 2018-19 (quantum and penalty appeals), the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity of hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has submitted additional evidence, including confirmation letters from buyers and ledger account copies, which were not examined by the lower authorities. Considering the new evidence and the request for de novo adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication, granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 59-day delay in filing the appeal, adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file all necessary evidence and cooperate fully without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The tribunal condoned the 367-day delay. It admitted an additional ground challenging the applicability of the 60% tax rate under the amended Section 115BBE for AY 2017-18. Following a prior Co-ordinate Bench decision and the Madras High Court's favorable view, the tribunal directed the AO to re-determine the tax liability on the addition under Section 69A at 30% as per the pre-amended Section 115BBE. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed or academic.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation basis of Rs. 60,000/- per acre for nursery income to be without foundation, especially when the assessee had furnished an agricultural income certificate showing Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-estimate the agricultural income at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for the 20 acres, leading to a total of Rs. 20,00,000/-, and restricted the addition under section 69A to the balance amount of Rs. 2,26,289/-.

The Tribunal condoned the 284-day delay, finding sufficient cause. Citing the Bombay High Court, it held that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, including the delay in filing without seeking condonation, and the failure to submit necessary documents and appeal fees. Therefore, the appeal was deemed liable for dismissal.

The Tribunal observed that the cash deposit of Rs.3,43,500/- was only marginally above the CBDT's non-enquiry limit for demonetisation deposits and was related to the assessee's cash-based business receipts. Lacking any material from the Revenue to prove the amount represented undisclosed income, the Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Act cannot be invoked when the money is recorded in the assessee's books of accounts and the sources are not disputed. It was also noted that the assessee satisfied the identity and genuineness of deposits from its members. Following judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal found no prohibition in accepting SBNs during the specified period.

The Tribunal condoned a 2-day delay in filing the appeal and, noting the assessee's plea for a final opportunity, remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order within 90 days, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate, failing which the CIT(A) may pass an order on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard and decide the appeal afresh on its merits, particularly considering the protective nature of the addition.

The ITAT held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it failed to specifically indicate whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' by not striking off the inapplicable limb. Relying on prior jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal decisions, the ITAT concluded that an ambiguous show-cause notice cannot form the basis for valid penalty proceedings. Therefore, the assessee's cross-objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, finding the AO's assessment prima facie arbitrary. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an appropriate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's adjournment petition violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal noted that the main appeal for the assessment year was still pending before the CIT(A), and the assessee wished to withdraw the current appeal seeking an absolute stay. As the Departmental Representative did not object, the Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the CIT(A) erred by overlooking material facts, such as the origin of funds from demonetized currency and the trustee's admitted commission for accommodation entries. The ITAT observed a lack of corroborating evidence linking Shakti Sugars Ltd. to the demonetized cash or to the payment being made on their behalf. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing further investigation, including recording statements on oath from all involved parties.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's affidavit and medical certificate, which explained the delay was due to illness. Finding it a fit case, the Tribunal condoned the 128-day delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the 90-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's explanation that he was a non-resident, notices went to spam, and he became aware only upon receiving physical penalty notices. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, while also cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal upheld the assessee's cross-objection, ruling that the notice issued under Section 148 on 27.07.2022 for AY 2017-18 (beyond the three-year limitation) was invalid. The approval for this notice was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who was not the competent authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid, and the consequential assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the Director's judicial custody as a justifiable reason. On the merits of reopening, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a mere 'change of opinion' by the successor AO regarding facts already available on record during the original assessment. Furthermore, the reopening was initiated beyond the four-year period without any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts, thus violating the 'first proviso' to Section 147. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed due to lack of valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal ex-parte, finding it not maintainable as the assessee neither filed an application for condonation of delay nor provided any reasonable cause for the 276-day delay. Consequently, the appeal was held to be barred by limitation.