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 Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting no mala fide intent and adopting a liberal approach in line with judicial precedents. Emphasizing principles of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de-novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present their case.

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 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 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.

Following a similar precedent, the tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide the assessee a final opportunity to submit all necessary documents and then pass a speaking order on merits, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The ITAT, citing principles of natural justice and various judicial precedents, held that an ex-parte dismissal by the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) without adjudicating on merits violates natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present their case.

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 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 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/-.

Following the Supreme Court's directive and principles of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The appeals are remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present their case. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass an order within three months under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act.

Complying with the Supreme Court's directive and principles of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for both assessment years. The cases were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to present their case, with a directive for the CIT(A) to pass an order within three months.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits. Emphasizing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal directed that the assessee be given one final opportunity to present their case. The CIT(A) is instructed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act within three months.

The Tribunal, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and citing judicial precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. It granted the assessee one final opportunity to represent its case on merits, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future hearing notices, and the CIT(A) to pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months.

The ITAT, invoking principles of natural justice and citing judicial precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act within three months.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A), as the CIT(A) did not consider or refer to the assessee's adjournment requests. Both the assessee's representative and the revenue's representative agreed that the matter should be restored. Therefore, the ITAT restored all appeals (quantum and penalty) back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to decide the issues within three months, with the assessee also directed to be vigilant and proactive.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A), as adjournment requests were not considered. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter of quantum additions and related penalties to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing a decision within three months, with the expectation that the assessee would be vigilant and proactive.

The ITAT determined that the CIT(A) had failed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard by not considering adjournment requests. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the quantum and penalty appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, de novo adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to be proactive.

The Tribunal condoned the 362-day delay, acknowledging the assessee's genuine difficulties and lack of malafide intent. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the case for denovo adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a final opportunity for a hearing under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act.

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's habitual non-compliance but, adhering to the principles of natural justice, decided to set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter is remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present their case, conditional on their due compliance with hearing notices.

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 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 set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee a final opportunity to submit all necessary documents and evidence. The CIT(E) was instructed to pass a speaking order after thoroughly deliberating on the objects and genuineness of the assessee's activities, in line with the spirit of the Act's provisions for charitable trusts.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 issued by ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, was invalid as that officer lacked valid jurisdiction. Furthermore, the re-assessment framed by ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was also invalid due to the absence of a proper notice u/s 148 from the jurisdictional AO and the lack of a transfer order u/s 127. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were declared void ab initio.

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 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 the assessment framed by ITO-3(1) was without jurisdiction, invalid, and bad in law, as there was no order of transfer under Section 127 and no valid notice under Section 143(2) issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and the principle of natural justice requires proper notice from the correct authority. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, making the grounds on merits academic.

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.