ITAT Raipur Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal, relying on multiple High Court judgments (Delhi, Bombay) and the Supreme Court, held that such an ambiguous penalty notice is void ab initio because it violates the principles of natural justice. It emphasized that the Assessing Officer must clearly indicate the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings are initiated, to enable the assessee to prepare a proper defense. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were deemed a nullity, and the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC became non-est.

The Tribunal found the 346-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) to be sufficiently explained, attributing it to non-cooperation from the former counsel and medical issues of the new counsel. Adopting a justice-oriented approach and citing High Court judgments, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that condonation of delay in filing Form 10 falls outside its adjudicative jurisdiction and is solely within the purview of the revenue authority. Upon the counsel's request, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a rider allowing the assessee to restore the appeal if the matter subsequently falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding it violated principles of natural justice, and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) 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, with the assessee also directed to ensure compliance with hearing notices.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's intent to resolve the dispute through the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. A rider was added, allowing the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if their grievances are not redressed under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had disclosed the intention to resolve the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, no purpose would be served by keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a rider that the assessee could seek restoration if the redressal through the VSVS Scheme fails.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was 'bereft of findings' and lacked a proper factual inquiry on the merits. Crucially, it found the jurisdictional challenge raised by the assessee regarding the absence of a Section 127 transfer order to be fundamental. Given the ambiguity surrounding the Section 127 order, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This readjudication is contingent on verifying the Section 127 order and complying with principles of natural justice, after which the merits of the addition can be re-examined.

The Tribunal observed that the revenue authorities had accepted the assessee's business operations, reported purchase/sales, and books of accounts, without disputing the source of cash from mobile recharge sales. Citing a similar case, Payel Verma, the Tribunal ruled that merely depositing SBNs during demonetization, when the business source is established and undisputed, does not automatically lead to an addition under Section 69A. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 2,29,500 was directed to be deleted.

Following precedents emphasizing natural justice and the right to be heard, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present their case. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, was remanded for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeal should also be remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC. This decision aligns with Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents stating that when the underlying addition or quantum is restored/remanded, the penalty should also be restored/remanded.

The Tribunal condoned the 154-day delay, adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach as supported by Supreme Court judgments. It identified inconsistencies regarding the source of deposits (agricultural income versus alleged share transactions) and the nature of these deposits (single large sum versus culmination of small, regular amounts). Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, with directions for proper verification by the AO and a final opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach given the circumstances and legal precedents on condonation of delay and natural justice. Following the *Brajesh Singh Bhadoria* case, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded both matters back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is directed to pass orders within three months.

The tribunal condoned the delay, applying a justice-oriented and liberal approach given the specific circumstances and lack of malafide intent. It emphasized that ex-parte dismissals by the CIT(A)/NFAC without adjudicating on merits violate principles of natural justice. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded both appeals for de novo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee to comply with hearing notices.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the assessee's persistent non-compliance and evasion of the legal process across two rounds of appeal, despite being given ample opportunities. The Tribunal emphasized that such deliberate attempts to prolong litigation should be curbed to maintain faith in the judicial process, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution, as it violates principles of natural justice. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was "bereft of facts" and "not a speaking order" as it failed to address the assessee's submissions regarding the balance sheet showing investment of funds and the department's consistent allowance of the deduction in previous assessment years. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh verification and adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider all submissions and issue a speaking order within three months.

The Tribunal condoned the 46-day delay, acknowledging it was due to a technical issue with Form 35 and not deliberate or malafide conduct, adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach. It ruled that the CIT(Appeals) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution but must dispose of it on merits, upholding the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)' ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to comply within three months.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was a summary order, lacking facts, findings, and independent application of mind, thus violating principles of natural justice and the mandates of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a de novo consideration, directing the CIT(A) to verify facts, consider all submissions and evidence, and pass a speaking order within three months.

The Tribunal held that the physical service of the reassessment notice under Section 148 was made beyond the three-year period, and the department failed to provide evidence of the requisite approval from the Principal CIT as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed arbitrary, bad in law, and invalid, and was quashed ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that the department did not dispute the assessee's business model as a wholesaler or the nature of her customers. Crucially, the department also accepted the assessee's books of accounts and did not question her turnover. Given these facts, the Tribunal held that the cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A, and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs.17,61,000.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh consideration. It directed the CIT(A) to conduct further inquiry, obtain a remand report from the A.O., and provide the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction and file necessary evidence under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal, adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, condoned the 517-day delay. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the case back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to be heard, with a directive to comply with future hearing notices.

The Tribunal, emphasizing principles of natural justice and citing various Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that an ex-parte dismissal without proper adjudication on merits violates these principles. It set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case within three months.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for de novo adjudication. The A.O. is directed to verify the assessee's return to determine the correct tax regime (old or new) and pass a speaking order, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles, including allowing necessary deductions if the old tax regime is applied.

Citing principles of natural justice and various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal without adjudication on merits violates the right to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC orders and remanded the matters back for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case and evidence.

The ITAT, emphasizing principles of natural justice and citing various precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC. It remanded all matters back for *de novo* adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to comply with hearing notices and submit documentary evidence. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to pass an order within three months.

The ITAT, following principles of natural justice and similar precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present their case and evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to pass orders within three months as per Section 250(4) and (6).

The Tribunal, emphasizing principles of natural justice and citing precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present their case and file documentary evidence.

The ITAT, citing principles of natural justice and various precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits. The tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass orders within three months, with the assessee also directed to comply during this final opportunity.

The Tribunal observed that the department did not dispute the assessee's disclosed business activities, books of account, or agricultural income, from which the cash deposits were claimed to be accumulated savings. Since the department failed to bring any alternative source of income or evidence to dispute the explained source, the cash deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- could not be considered unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, emphasizing principles of natural justice. The matters were remanded back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case and evidence within three months.

The Tribunal, upholding the principles of natural justice and citing precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit its case and documentary evidence. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act within three months.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for all assessment years. It remanded the cases back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and providing the assessee a final opportunity to submit evidence and be heard. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to pass an order within three months.

The Tribunal, following judicial precedents and principles of natural justice, held that the assessee must be given a final opportunity to present its case on merits. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to pass orders under Section 250(4) and (6) within three months, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allowing submission of documentary evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, emphasizing principles of natural justice and judicial precedents. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be given one final opportunity to comply and that an order be passed within three months under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act.

Following the principles of natural justice and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is granted one final opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A), who is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for all assessment years. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present its case and evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to pass orders within three months.

The Tribunal held that the merger resulted in changed financial figures and the formation of a new entity, making the original return outdated and potentially causing gross injustice. It, therefore, set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and verification of the accounts considering the merger, with a fresh assessment order to be passed.

The Tribunal condoned the 93-day delay, finding it not deliberate. It held that the CIT(Exemption)'s order was "cryptic, arbitrary and summary" as it failed to adjudicate the application on its merits regarding the trust's objects and genuineness of activities. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to explain the prior exemption claims.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The matter was remanded for *de novo* adjudication on merits, with the assessee being granted a final opportunity to present its case and the CIT(A) directed to pass an order within three months under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal, citing principles of natural justice and various precedents, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present its case within three months.