ITAT Raipur Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC adjudicated the matter without appreciating or admitting additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the case back with a direction that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC admit additional evidence, call for a remand report under Rule 46A(3), and adjudicate the matter as per law under Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was also directed to comply with future hearing notices.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily accepting the AO's findings without proper verification of additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted numerous documents to the Ld. CIT(A) which were not properly referred to or considered, and no adequate opportunity was given to explain them. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication within three months, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits. It directed the CIT(Appeals) to provide a final reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act within three months, while the assessee must comply with hearing notices. The decision was based on principles of natural justice, citing various judicial precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal, following its precedent, set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded both matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to submit all necessary documents and comply with hearing notices, with the CIT(Exemption) directed to pass a speaking order after considering all evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), recognizing that the CIT(Appeals) order was ex-parte and adhering to principles of natural justice, set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits. The ITAT directed the assessee to ensure compliance in the remanded proceedings.

The Tribunal, following its precedent, set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded both matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to submit all necessary documents and comply with hearing notices, with the CIT(Exemption) directed to pass a speaking order after considering all evidence.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), upholding principles of natural justice and relying on judicial precedents, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing principles of natural justice and citing judicial precedents. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order within three months under Section 250(4) and (6). The assessee was directed to ensure compliance with notices as a final opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication. A final opportunity was granted to the assessee to represent their case on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 362 days, citing the assessee's bonafide reasons and the need for a liberal approach in such cases. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The ITAT condoned a delay of 116 days. It held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and arbitrary for failing to pass a speaking order under sections 250(4) and 250(6). Given that the assessee's business, purchases, sales, and books of accounts were undisputed, the ITAT directed the deletion of both additions: Rs. 30,48,500/- and Rs. 8,86,366/-.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require a proper adjudication on merits. Since the lower appellate authority passed ex-parte orders due to non-compliance, the matter was remanded back for a fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) as their adjournment requests were not considered. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following precedent and in the interest of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require a proper adjudication on merits. Since the lower appellate authority's orders were ex-parte due to non-compliance, the matter was remanded back for a fresh adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) as their adjournment requests were not considered. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) as their adjournment requests were not considered. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, emphasizing that this is a final opportunity for the assessee to comply.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to represent their case on merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which had set aside the Assessing Officer's reassessment order and remanded the case for fresh assessment. The CIT(A) exercised powers under the newly inserted proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee is at liberty to raise all legal pleas, including the challenge to the sanction u/s 151, before the AO during the fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued by an officer without valid jurisdiction, and the subsequent assessment was framed by another officer without proper transfer orders and without issuing a fresh notice u/s 148. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer without proper authority, and there was no valid transfer order under Section 127. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly submitted relevant documents to justify its objects and genuineness of activities as required under Section 12AB. It held that the CIT(E) failed to point out discrepancies or issue a show-cause notice, and did not pass a speaking order after deliberating all evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case and directing the CIT(E) to pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's clear intent to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with the condition that if the assessee fails to achieve redressal through the VSVS Scheme, they would be at liberty to seek restoration of the appeal as per law.

The Tribunal held that Union Bank of India is a public sector bank with majority government stake, thus establishing the assessee as a government employee. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 18,05,880/- made by the lower authorities was found to be unjustified, arbitrary, and bad in law, and was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly submitted relevant documents to justify its objects and genuineness of activities as required under Section 12AB. It held that the CIT(E) failed to point out discrepancies or issue a show-cause notice, and did not pass a speaking order after deliberating all evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case and directing the CIT(E) to pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal, relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Vs. M/s. Mohhomad Haji Adam & Company, held that additions for bogus/unproved purchases should be limited to adjusting the Gross Profit (G.P.) rate of such purchases to match that of genuine purchases. Consequently, the matter, including all connected grounds, was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo adjudication, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and did not substantially adjudicate the assessee's rights and liabilities. Applying principles of natural justice and recognizing Income Tax legislation as welfare-oriented, the ITAT decided to grant the assessee one final opportunity. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter back for de-novo adjudication, directing the assessee to appear with relevant documents.

The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's explanation regarding the wrong PAN and did not conduct an independent inquiry under Sections 250(4) and 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly explained the source of the cash deposits of Rs.9,00,000/-. Consequently, the addition was deemed unsustainable, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly calculated the limitation period from the date of the assessment order instead of the date of its receipt by the assessee. It determined there was no delay in filing the manual or e-appeal and condoned any perceived delay, citing Supreme Court precedent that limitation is a legal issue. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for *de-novo* adjudication on merits, with directions to pass a speaking order under Sections 250(4) and 250(6).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and arbitrary, as it allowed cost of acquisition and indexation for one part of the jointly sold property but denied it for another part of the same property without proper reasoning. The Tribunal emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority must provide reasoned findings, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the lower authorities.