ITAT Raipur Judgments — January 2025

The ITAT held that since the foundational Pr. CIT order u/s 263, which was the basis for the AO's re-assessment and the subsequent addition, had been quashed by the ITAT and its appeal dismissed by the High Court, it no longer survived. Consequently, the AO's re-assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition were deemed non-existent and set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had initiated the process to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek restoration if a final settlement order is not passed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting justifiable reasons. However, due to the assessee's persistent non-representation and evasive conduct, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting justifiable reasons. However, due to the assessee's persistent non-representation and evasive conduct, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the credits in the bank account are to be treated as business receipts and restored the issue to the AO for verification. If the AO finds the transactions are accounted for, no estimation is needed. If estimation is required, it should be based on the average GP rate of the preceding three years, not less than the returned income.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, and both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the credits in the bank account are to be treated as business receipts and restored the issue to the AO for verification. If the AO finds the transactions are accounted for, no estimation is needed. If estimation is required, it should be based on the average GP rate of the preceding three years, not less than the returned income.

The Tribunal held that the credits in the bank account are to be treated as business receipts and restored the issue to the AO for verification. If the AO finds the transactions are accounted for, no estimation is needed. If estimation is required, it should be based on the average GP rate of the preceding three years, not less than the returned income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting justifiable reasons. However, due to the assessee's persistent non-representation and evasive conduct, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting justifiable reasons. However, due to the assessee's persistent non-representation and evasive conduct, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, considering the assessee's initiation of the VSVS-2024 process, and stated that the appeal need not be pending for adjudication on merits. It further held that the assessee is at liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the order for final settlement in "Form 4" is not passed by the designated authority.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, resulting in its dismissal as withdrawn. However, the Tribunal also granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if the "Form 4" for full and final settlement under the VSVS 2024 is not subsequently passed by the designated authority.

The Tribunal determined that the CIT(Appeals) incorrectly refused to adjudicate the validity of the AO's jurisdiction. It emphasized that Section 127(1) read with (3) mandates providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before transferring a case between offices located in different cities. Since the Pr. CIT-1, Bilaspur, failed to provide this opportunity during the transfer from Ambikapur to Korba, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(Appeals) should have addressed this jurisdictional challenge. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on the jurisdictional issue, leaving other contentions open.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) provided an unreasonably short period of 6 days for the assessee to respond, violating the principles of natural justice. Following a jurisdictional High Court ruling, the Tribunal quashed the AO's order and the notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal determined that the CIT(Appeals) incorrectly refused to adjudicate the validity of the AO's jurisdiction. It emphasized that Section 127(1) read with (3) mandates providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before transferring a case between offices located in different cities. Since the Pr. CIT-1, Bilaspur, failed to provide this opportunity during the transfer from Ambikapur to Korba, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(Appeals) should have addressed this jurisdictional challenge. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on the jurisdictional issue, leaving other contentions open.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent non-compliance but found that the addition of the entire receipt without proper inquiry was excessive. It inferred from additional evidence that the assessee was engaged in business activities.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The CIT(A) had accepted additional evidence furnished by the assessee, which was not considered by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, as the assessee had specifically opted out of email service for notices in "Form 35" and was not validly served with physical hearing notices. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte without validly putting the assessee to notice, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's share of investment was Rs. 22,73,850. Since the assessee explained Rs. 22,00,000 and the balance Rs. 73,850 could be related to cash in hand from her business, the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Citing various provisions of the Income Tax Act and a Bombay High Court judgment, the ITAT emphasized that a CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and address all issues, and cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is statutorily obligated to dispose of the appeal on merits. The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO's failure to apply the mandatory provisions of Section 115BBE and incorrectly initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAC made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's casual and lackadaisical conduct throughout the proceedings and noted that no application for condonation of the 178-day delay was filed, nor were cogent reasons provided. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of late knowledge of the CIT(A) order to be unsubstantiated by email delivery records. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on this procedural ground without addressing the merits of the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed without affording a proper opportunity of being heard, as notices were not sent to the assessee's correct email address. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed by the AO without obtaining the mandatory approval from the Joint Commissioner as required under Section 153D of the Act. Consequently, the assessment was quashed due to lack of valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed by the AO without obtaining the mandatory approval from the Joint Commissioner as required under Section 153D of the Act. Consequently, the assessment was quashed due to lack of valid jurisdiction.