ITAT Raipur Judgments — May 2025

The tribunal condoned the significant delay, adopting a liberal approach given the assessee's circumstances and lack of malafide intent. It held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee, violated the principles of natural justice. The tribunal also noted that the correct legal provision for an unexplained cash deposit of Rs.2 lakhs in a bank account should be Section 69A, not Section 68. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a final opportunity granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical, without proper application of mind, and without examination of the relevant assessment records or seized material. Citing various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that such a perfunctory approval vitiates the assessment process. Consequently, all assessment orders for the years under appeal, based on this invalid approval, were declared void, illegal, and quashed.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to consider additional evidence (lenders' balance sheets and financials) uploaded by the assessee along with Form 35, as mandated by Rule 46A(3). The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO and passed a speaking order after considering all evidence under Section 250(4) & (6). Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC grossly violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a copy of the approval under section 153D and denying an opportunity to present submissions. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide de novo after providing the required documents and opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal ruled that the non-furnishing of the Section 153D approval and denial of opportunity constituted a gross violation of natural justice. Citing various precedents, it remanded the cases back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to provide the approval copy, allow the assessee to file submissions/documentary evidence, and decide the appeals de novo as per law.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's actions constituted a gross violation of natural justice, specifically the principle of "audi alteram partem." Citing Supreme Court precedents on natural justice, the Tribunal directed that the matters be remanded back to the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The appellate authority is now required to provide the assessee with a copy of the Section 153D approval and an opportunity to file submissions and evidence, after which the appeals should be decided de novo as per law.

The Tribunal, considering the request for a final opportunity and in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back. The assessee is directed to explain the source of the cash deposits, failing which the addition made will be upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, applying a liberal approach and considering the reasons for delay as 'Vis major'. Emphasizing principles of natural justice and the right to be heard, the Tribunal remanded both appeals back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to represent her case. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by inquiring into the gifted property, stating it was within jurisdiction as the property was disclosed in the capital account. However, in the interest of natural justice and given the assessee's claim of having submitted evidence not considered, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC to provide a final opportunity for the assessee to present documentary evidence and submissions, requiring the CIT(A)/NFAC to conduct ground verification and pass a speaking order.

The tribunal condoned the 106-day delay, accepting the 'Vis-major' reasons, citing a liberal approach towards limitation. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and providing one final opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) was directed to pass an order within three months.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) deleted the additions based solely on the AO's error in applying wrong sections without delving into the merits. The ITAT held that the CIT(A), having co-terminus powers with the AO, should have investigated the merits to determine if the discrepancies constituted taxable income, even if under a different section. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) grossly violated the principles of natural justice by enhancing the assessment without conducting proper inquiry or affording the assessee an opportunity to explain the bank deposits or present evidence, as mandated by Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Citing Supreme Court precedents on natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for re-adjudication, directing them to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee due opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal, relying on various High Court precedents, ruled that approval under Section 153D requires independent application of mind for each assessment year and assessee. As the approval was given mechanically and summarily, based on borrowed satisfaction and without recording any reasoning, it was void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order passed pursuant to such an invalid approval was quashed.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's actions constituted a gross violation of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard. It highlighted that the approval under Section 153D was crucial and denying its copy along with an opportunity for submissions rendered the appellate proceedings procedurally flawed. Consequently, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for a de novo decision after providing the necessary copy and opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, applying a liberal approach to condonation of delay in light of "Vis-major" circumstances and judicial precedents. It held that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity.

The ITAT, following similar precedents and principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The tribunal remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to ensure compliance with future hearing notices and instructing the CIT(Appeals) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass an order on merits in accordance with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay, deeming the reasons "Vis major" and adopting a liberal approach to justice as per Supreme Court precedents. Recognizing that the ex-parte dismissals by the CIT(A)/NFAC denied the assessee an opportunity to be heard on merits, and upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. It remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee to comply and present her case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, classifying it as 'Vis-major' and adopting a liberal approach in line with Supreme Court judgments. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, remanding the matters for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was given one final opportunity to present its case, and the CIT(A) was directed to pass orders within three months, complying with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had chosen an alternative dispute resolution mechanism under the DTVSVS-2024 by filing Form 1. The Tribunal clarified that if the final settlement order (Form 4) under DTVSVS is not issued by the designated authority, the assessee would have the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a merits adjudication, violating principles of natural justice and obligations under Sections 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the ITAT emphasized the first appellate authority's duty to decide appeals on merits. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits within three months, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing, adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach based on the 'Vis-major' circumstances. Citing various Supreme Court and High Court rulings, it held that dismissing appeals ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s orders and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal confirmed that the substantive addition forming the basis of the penalty had indeed been deleted in the quantum appeal (ITA No.192/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2011-12) because the underlying assessment order was quashed due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer, who had framed the assessment without a valid transfer order under Section 127. Following judicial precedents that a penalty cannot survive after the deletion of the quantum addition, the Tribunal quashed the penalty imposed.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, recognizing the reasons as 'Vis-major' and emphasizing a liberal, justice-oriented approach in condonation. Citing various Supreme Court and High Court judgments that uphold the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard (Article 14 of the Constitution), the ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case, with directions for the CIT(Appeals) to pass an order within three months.

The tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was unfounded, arbitrary, and bad in law. It observed that the department had accepted similar advances from other parties involved in the same transaction, and the assessee subsequently provided the necessary affidavits as additional evidence, which the AO failed to disprove effectively. The tribunal rejected the AO's contentions regarding discrepancies in stamp paper dates and signatures, stating they were minor errors or not adequately investigated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no malafide intent from the assessee, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merit and cannot summarily dismiss them in limine.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be taken when condoning delay, particularly if it prevents substantial justice. It ruled that the CIT(Appeals) is statutorily bound to decide appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them in limine for delay. The order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had noted the absence of documentary evidence from the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, directing the assessee to re-submit relevant evidences for verification, and for the CIT(A) to pass a fresh speaking order after verification.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal was a violation of natural justice, as no deliberate negligence was proven. Citing various judicial precedents on the right to be heard, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act within three months.

The Tribunal condoned the 575-day delay in filing the appeal, adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) was directed to pass an order within three months, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the assessment to the AO for denovo adjudication, noting that the assessee had submitted new evidence at the CIT(A) stage. It directed the assessee to present both factual and legal grounds, along with necessary documentary evidence, before the AO during the denovo assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal.

The tribunal condoned the 6-day delay, citing Supreme Court judgments advocating a justice-oriented approach. It remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, instructing them to consider the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) and to follow natural justice principles, allowing the assessee to explain why the penalty should not be levied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 361 days, citing a liberal approach in condoning delays when substantial justice is at stake, especially given the assessee's judicial custody. It noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee in adherence to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the 54-day delay, finding the reasons circumstantial and not malafide. It held that the CIT(Appeals) is statutorily obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution, as it violates principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.