ITAT Raipur Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on a factual error, misconstruing the VSVS declaration for a penalty as applicable to the quantum additions. Both parties agreed that the matter required reconsideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal *ex-parte* without considering its merits, as such a dismissal is not permissible under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and established legal precedents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The tribunal also noted that CPC is empowered to make adjustments under section 143(1) for incorrect claims apparent from the return.

The ITAT, citing the Bombay High Court, held that the CIT(A) is statutorily bound to dispose of an appeal on its merits and cannot dismiss it summarily for non-prosecution. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity and directing the CIT(A) to pass an order within three months.

The ITAT noted that there was no proper service of hearing notices as the assessee had opted out of email communication. Citing principles of natural justice and relying on previous judgments, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee for compliance.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had opted for physical delivery of notices and against email communication in Form 35, and the revenue failed to prove service through any other mode. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's non-representation was bona fide and not intentional avoidance, thus violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT upheld the Pr. CIT's revisionary order, confirming that the AO did not conduct proper inquiry into the delayed payment of employee's share of EPF contributions. The tribunal reiterated that the Supreme Court's 'Checkmate Services' judgment, which disallows belated employee contributions, applies retrospectively. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was justified in setting aside the AO's order for fresh assessment.

The tribunal noted the assessee's contention of not receiving email notices as they opted out in Form 35. It decided to restore the matter to the First Appellate Authority for a de novo adjudication within three months, providing the assessee one final opportunity for a proper hearing, contingent on their cooperation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made a perverse order by stating wrong facts regarding the penalty amount and failed to examine the assessee's reasonable cause under Section 273B. Considering the assessee's submission about the voluminous nature of information and no intention to avoid proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty.

The tribunal held that it was mandatory for the AO to refer the property's valuation to the DVO under Section 50C(2) read with Section 55A of the Act, given that the assessee claimed the fair market value was less than the stamp duty valuation. The CIT(Appeals) erred by upholding the AO's decision, which was deemed arbitrary and bad in law for not making the mandatory reference.

The Tribunal found that the notices sent by the CIT(A) were directed to an incorrect email ID, different from the one provided by the assessee in Form 35. Concluding that the assessee was not validly put to notice and principles of natural justice were violated, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to be heard within three months.

The Tribunal found that hearing notices from the Ld. CIT(A) were indeed sent to a wrong email ID, constituting a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for de novo adjudication, with directions for proper service of notices. The Tribunal also observed that the serious allegations of accommodation entries and tax evasion require thorough investigation by the revenue authorities regarding potential fraud.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a specific opportunity to the assessee to rebut the observed violations after its final submission on 18.12.2024. Upholding principles of natural justice, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted one last opportunity to provide evidence and submissions to counter the findings regarding Section 13(1)(b) and their eligibility for registration.

The Tribunal condoned the 27-day delay, acknowledging the reasons were circumstantial and not malicious. However, it upheld the CIT(A)/NFAC's finding that the appeal against the section 143(1) intimation was indeed infructuous, as a subsequent assessment under section 143(3) had been completed, subsuming the earlier intimation. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, ruling that eligibility for Section 115BAB's concessional rate is conditional upon filing Form 10ID by the due date of the first return of income for any previous year commencing on or after April 1, 2020, as per Section 115BAB(7) read with Section 139(1). Since the assessee failed to meet this statutory deadline, the benefit was correctly denied, emphasizing the necessity for strict and literal interpretation of fiscal statutes.

The ITAT condoned the 395-day delay, citing principles of substantial justice and the welfare nature of tax legislation. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the cases back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to present their case, with a directive to comply with future hearing notices.

The Tribunal condoned the 395-day delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing the Income Tax Act as welfare legislation and the principles of natural justice. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the cases back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the 395-day delay, adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach given the welfare nature of tax legislation. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the cases for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to present their case and comply with notices, based on principles of natural justice and judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the facts and contentions, particularly the scope of the CMD's admission and the lack of corroborative evidence, required detailed verification. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to conduct a detailed enquiry, potentially calling for a remand report from the AO, as per Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the facts regarding taxation and evidence needed further verification. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for detailed verification, enquiry, and a speaking order in terms of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act, potentially calling for a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. It was held that there is a need for ground verification, detailed examination of facts, and corroborative evidence, particularly concerning the admission by Shri B.L. Agrawal, CMD, and its relevance to the assessee's group. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after detailed verification and enquiry under Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for detailed verification and enquiry. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass a speaking order after considering a remand report from the AO and ensuring the assessee's compliance. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes due to the remand.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that an admission of bogus loans by a group CMD was not related to the present assessee and that the additions lacked corroborative evidence. Finding that further ground verification and inquiry of facts were necessary, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for detailed examination and a fresh speaking order.

The Tribunal determined that, according to Notification No.1/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014, the correct jurisdiction for non-company assessees with income above Rs. 10 lakhs lay with the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT/ACIT-3(1)), Raipur. As the ITO, Ward-Mahasamund inherently lacked this jurisdiction, the Tribunal held the entire assessment proceedings and order to be invalid, void ab initio, and consequently quashed the assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and decided without proper representation from the assessee, violating natural justice. Following principles from similar cases, the Tribunal set aside both the assessment and penalty orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case within three months.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) is statutorily bound to dispose of appeals on their merits and cannot summarily dismiss them solely on grounds of delay or non-prosecution. The ITAT condoned the remaining 67-day delay, deeming it unintentional, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, directing the CIT(A) to examine the genuineness of the share capital and share premium transactions.

Following a precedent set by the ITAT Division Bench, Raipur, for similar ex-parte dismissals, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority for a de novo adjudication, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present his case on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. It emphasized that the case involved serious allegations of unaccounted investments and money rotation, necessitating a detailed examination by the CIT(A)/NFAC to determine if fraudulent transactions were used for tax evasion. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that fraud vitiates all acts and that parties approaching the court must come with clean hands.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving multiple opportunities. Following a similar precedent, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to represent his case on merits.

The Tribunal noted the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and, following a similar precedent, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate its claims on merits. However, the Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to comply or prove non-involvement, the additions will be sustained.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the 485-day delay in filing the appeals, citing medical reasons and reliance on counsel, adopting a liberal approach in the interest of justice. Recognizing the assessee's claim of agricultural income as the source of cash and their plea for a final opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC orders and remanded both matters for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to submit documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the 485-day delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's health issues and limited understanding, and applying a liberal approach as per Supreme Court precedents. On the merits of the case, considering the assessee's repeated failure to provide evidence for the agricultural income claim and the request for a final opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to comply with notices and present all necessary documentary evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the authenticity of the disputed land sale agreement was sub-judice before a Civil Court and that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had not fully considered additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is directed to re-adjudicate after considering all additional evidence and awaiting the Civil Court's determination of the document's validity.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for both the quantum assessment and penalty appeals. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide one final opportunity to the assessee and pass an appropriate order within three months, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that according to Section 80AC read with Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, deductions under Chapter VI-A are permissible only if the return is filed within the specified due date. The Tribunal emphasized its role as a statutory body to interpret fiscal statutes strictly and thus could not condone the one-day delay, differentiating its powers from those of a Constitutional Authority like a High Court.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order which had remanded both issues (TDS credit and employee's PF contribution) to the Assessing Officer (AO). The ITAT agreed that the AO should examine updated Form 26AS for TDS credit and original challans for PF deposits to verify the assessee's claims. Consequently, the assessee's appeal to the ITAT for direct relief was dismissed as the remand order was affirmed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. It confirmed the validity of the re-assessment proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's claims regarding mechanical reopening or unserved notices. The tribunal also sustained the addition of Rs. 11,71,105/- as unexplained income, as the assessee failed to provide any verifiable evidence for the source of these cash deposits or prove engagement in business activities.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal violated principles of natural justice and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits. It granted the assessee a final opportunity to present their case and evidence, directing the CIT(A) to also thoroughly investigate the alleged fraud and colourable devices used for tax evasion.

The Tribunal noted the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance despite multiple opportunities. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal deemed it fit to grant the assessee one final opportunity to represent their case on merits. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, with a caveat that additions would be sustained if there is further non-compliance or failure to explain cash deposits.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, noting that the assessee, despite filing his return under Section 44AD, failed to maintain proper books of account and could not provide corroborative evidence such as daily sale registers or customer-wise Girvi receipts for the cash deposits. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings, concluding that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the source of cash deposits, and thus upheld the addition.

The Tribunal, after reviewing a report from the AO, concluded that ITO-4(3) and ITO-4(5) were under the same jurisdictional range, thus a specific transfer order u/s 127 was not required. The legal ground raised by the assessee was therefore dismissed. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case to the AO for fresh consideration of the merits, as the assessee would get an opportunity to present all evidence.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% perverse, as it failed to adequately consider the factual matrix and the assessee's inability to prove the genuineness of purchases. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents emphasizing the applicability of Section 69C for unexplained expenditures in bogus transactions, the Tribunal held that the onus on the assessee to prove genuineness was not discharged. The matter requires thorough examination by the First Appellate Authority.