ITAT Raipur Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 by substituting his own view for a plausible view taken by the AO. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and based his reassessment order on the available material, including land revenue records and satellite imageries.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper confrontation and verification of the date of service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 by substituting his own view for a plausible view taken by the AO. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and based his reassessment order on the available material, including land revenue records and satellite imageries.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal in a piecemeal manner by not adjudicating the jurisdictional issues related to the reopening of assessment under Section 147. Therefore, the tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate all issues, including the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the claim of "borrowed satisfaction." Both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 by substituting his own view for a plausible view taken by the AO. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and based his reassessment order on the available material, including land revenue records and satellite imageries.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Relying on CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017, which states that cash deposits up to Rs. 2.5 lakhs by individuals without business income do not require verification, the Tribunal further reduced the addition. The final addition was scaled down to Rs. 3 lakhs (Rs. 5.50 lakhs - Rs. 2.50 lakhs).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to participate in assessment proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, such as notices being sent to an old email ID. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal due to delay to be incorrect and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 by substituting his own view for a plausible view taken by the AO. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and based his reassessment order on the available material, including land revenue records and satellite imageries.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 by substituting his own view for a plausible view taken by the AO. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and based his reassessment order on the available material, including land revenue records and satellite imageries.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 by substituting his own view for a plausible view taken by the AO. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and based his reassessment order on the available material, including land revenue records and satellite imageries.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 by substituting his own view for a plausible view taken by the AO. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and based his reassessment order on the available material, including land revenue records and satellite imageries.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148A and 148 were beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148A and 148 were beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were issued beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that notices were not validly served, leading to their inability to appear before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was illegal and void ab initio because a search under Section 132 had been initiated while the reassessment was pending. As per Section 153A, pending assessments abate upon initiation of search, and assessment should be framed under Section 153A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s view on the estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the validity of reassessment and the addition made towards the peak of purchases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's offer of additional income, made in the absence of plausible explanations for credits, was rightly treated as undisclosed income by the AO. The grounds related to this offer were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s view on the estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the validity of reassessment and the addition made towards the peak of purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s view on the estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the validity of reassessment and the addition made towards the peak of purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s view on the estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the validity of reassessment and the addition made towards the peak of purchases.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained if the assessee has furnished all requisite documents and discharged the primary onus, and the revenue authorities have not conducted independent inquiries. The Tribunal directed to strike down the addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s view on the estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the validity of reassessment and the addition made towards the peak of purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s view on the estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the validity of reassessment and the addition made towards the peak of purchases.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made on borrowed opinion without independent inquiry or corroborative evidence. The revenue failed to establish any nexus between the assessee and 'Mayura Yogesh' or the transactions in question.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s observation about non-filing of Form 35 to be erroneous. It also noted that while salary income was considered, the TDS credit reflected in Form 26AS was not allowed. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s observation about non-filing of Form 35 to be erroneous. It also noted that while salary income was considered, the TDS credit reflected in Form 26AS was not allowed. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed overlooked and not adjudicated the fundamental legal grounds concerning the AO's jurisdiction. The ITAT ruled that it was the duty of the CIT(A) to decide all issues raised by the assessee. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) with specific directions to adjudicate these legal grounds, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed overlooked and not adjudicated the fundamental legal grounds concerning the AO's jurisdiction. The ITAT ruled that it was the duty of the CIT(A) to decide all issues raised by the assessee. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) with specific directions to adjudicate these legal grounds, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine or rebut it. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive proper notice for the appeal proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) due to an opt-out of email service in the appeal form. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order was set aside.