ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 because the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, rendering it not maintainable. As a result, the assessee's Cross Objection also became infructuous and was consequently dismissed. The Department retains the liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if exceptions to the circular apply.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to calculate notional interest at 12% on Rs. 4,58,91,320/- and the deletion of the addition of unexplained expenditure made by the AO was in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the unaccounted cash transactions originated from the sales of the petrol bunk of M/s. AASC. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 34,39,566/- addition as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The CIT(A) had found that these amounts were repayments of earlier advances made by the assessee to the company, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in this order. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue on both issues were dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on unexplained expenditure was justified as the source of funds was established. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the deemed dividend addition, finding it to be a repayment of earlier advances.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the binding decision of the earlier Tribunal order, which had already adjudicated the matter in the assessee's favor. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order as unsustainable in law, allowing the assessee's grounds of appeal.

The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3 dismissed the assessee's appeal due to an un-condoned delay of over 5 years, citing non-maintainability under section 249(2). The ITAT upheld this decision, finding that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the extensive delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's prayer for another opportunity, remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits. The assessee was cautioned to promptly cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the undisclosed cash receipts and short admission of sales as business receipts, not unexplained money under Section 69A, as their nature and source were accepted. The ITAT also confirmed the deletion of notional interest, finding that the advance was made from interest-free funds. Additionally, the ITAT allowed the telescopic benefit for the unexplained expenditure against unaccounted receipts, dismissing the revenue's appeal on all grounds.

The Tribunal held that the Trust was registered under Section 12A and had been granted exemption in earlier years without any change in its activities. The expenditure on Golden Jubilee celebrations, funded by specific donations, was a one-time event and not a basis for denying exemption. The principle of consistency, as upheld by the Supreme Court, was applied.

The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal is hearing cross-appeals regarding the addition of on-money received and the estimation of profit.

The Tribunal held that the addition of on-money receipts was not justified as the cash payments did not belong to the assessee firm. However, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) in allowing telescopic benefit for the unaccounted expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a tax resident of Germany and the profits are attributable to its 100% German resident shareholder, Mr. Florian Grob. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to treaty benefits under the India-Germany DTAA.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds raised by the assessee, stating they go to the root of the matter. These grounds, challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent assessment, were not raised before the lower authorities. The Tribunal found it necessary to adjudicate these grounds first. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to raise these additional legal grounds before the Ld. CIT(A), who was then directed to adjudicate them in accordance with the law after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The original grounds raised on merits were kept open. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity to be heard and decide the case on merits, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year and required approval from specified authorities under Section 151. Since the approval was obtained from an authority not vested with jurisdiction, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in summarily concluding that the assessee made an unexplained investment for acquiring back land. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted for the DTVSV Scheme and received Form No.4, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous and did not survive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.