HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the seized document was a 'dumb document' lacking corroborative evidence, dates, or specific property references. The Revenue failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings, and the assessee provided an affidavit from the seller confirming the declared consideration, which was also supported by a DVO valuation.

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, agreeing that the seized document was a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that no inquiry was made from the seller, and the seller's affidavit confirmed the consideration as per registered sale deeds, which was also reaffirmed by the DVO's valuation.

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal upheld the addition related to cash deposits, finding no sufficient evidence for debtor realizations or a credible cash book. However, the issue of unexplained investment in immovable property was restored to the AO for re-examination, as the assessee claimed payments were made in prior years.

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

The tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as TDS was deducted and reflected in Form 26AS. It also deleted the addition of agricultural income treated as unexplained money, finding that the assessee owned apple trees and had declared similar income in prior years, and the Revenue provided no corroborative material to doubt the income.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed. The assessee was directed to cooperate.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal condoned the 986-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's age and change of CA. It found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was not speaking or reasoned and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, ensuring proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee. However, considering the voluminous documents and in the interest of justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) wrongly refused to condone the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds and that the period of the COVID-19 pandemic should be excluded for limitation purposes as per Supreme Court directives. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order after the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments instead of making submissions. To ensure natural justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.