ITAT Raipur Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal condoned the 873-day delay, finding it bona fide and unintentional, citing a liberal approach as per Supreme Court judgments. It held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the four-year period specified in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed as being barred by limitation.

The tribunal emphasized the fundamental importance of natural justice, especially the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (right to be heard), citing Supreme Court precedents. It found that the CIT(A) failed to grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing before enhancing the assessment. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication in compliance with natural justice principles.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred by analyzing FY 2023-24 financials for activities stated to have started in FY 2024-25 and violated principles of natural justice by not issuing a show-cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the four-year period specified in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) order was ex-parte, the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A).

The tribunal emphasized the fundamental importance of natural justice, especially the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (right to be heard), citing Supreme Court precedents. It found that the CIT(A) failed to grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing before enhancing the assessment. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication in compliance with natural justice principles.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Citing principles of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed Ground 1 (CSR expenses) as the AO failed to provide specific reasons for disallowance. Ground 2 (donation & charity) was remanded to the AO for verification. Ground 5 (additional depreciation) was also remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred by analyzing FY 2023-24 financials for activities stated to have started in FY 2024-25 and violated principles of natural justice by not issuing a show-cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the loose papers, which matched excise department notifications, did not represent unaccounted sales. It also found that a purported agreement was a 'dumb document' as it was unsigned, undated, denied by the counterparty, and not acted upon.

The CIT(A)/NFAC set aside the reassessment order, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible limitation period. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the notice was time-barred as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), read with Supreme Court judgments in Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal and Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that if an amount is not claimed as an expenditure in the Profit & Loss account, it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B, even if it remains unpaid. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the case of Grand Motors.

The Tribunal found that the financial evidence presented by the assessee, including ledger accounts and sales registers, demonstrated that the alleged cash receipts either did not constitute sale proceeds or were from multiple transactions, none individually exceeding the Rs. 2,00,000/- threshold under Section 269ST. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Section 269ST were not attracted, rendering the PCIT's revisional proceedings under Section 263 to initiate penalty under Section 271DA as devoid of merit. The order of the PCIT was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was made under Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act, which was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, effective from April 1, 2017. Since the TPO's and AO's orders were passed after this date, the invocation of the omitted provision rendered them invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the source of cash deposits was well explained by the assessee and the addition made under Section 69A was misplaced.

The Tribunal held that the AO made a blunder by treating Rs. 5,44,000/- as unexplained money without proper application of mind. The addition should have been made only for the amount deposited during the demonetization period, which was Rs. 3,50,000/-, and not the entire balance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one last opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal observed that since the matter had already been disposed of by a previous CIT(A) order and its effect given by the AO before the faceless regime, the subsequent impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was rendered non-est (void) as per law.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on fallacious and misconceived facts, and the invoking of provisions contrary to the facts on record indicated a clear non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.

The tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments, held that reassessment initiated on borrowed satisfaction without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind is bad in law and void ab initio. It found that the 'reasons to believe' recorded by the AO lacked any independent satisfaction regarding the escapement of income. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the failure to issue and serve notice under Section 143(2) of the Act renders the reassessment order invalid, bad in law, and void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio as they were initiated beyond the four-year period without any recorded failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, as required by the first proviso to Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio as they were initiated beyond the four-year period without any recorded failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, as required by the first proviso to Section 147.

The tribunal dismissed Ground No.1 as not pressed. For Ground No.2, the addition of Rs. 1,98,000 was deleted, as the assessee explained the source of funds (from husband via RTGS) and the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry. For Ground No.3, the addition of Rs. 13,15,000 was deleted, accepting the assessee's explanation of funds from her husband and past savings, as the department could not disprove the evidence. Consequently, the application of section 115BBE was also deleted, with the tribunal reiterating that additions cannot be based on mere suspicion without evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal observed a possible incorrect interpretation of the ITR by the revenue authorities due to conflicting selections within the form. It held that the CIT(A) bears the onus to correctly interpret the return of income and verify the facts with adequate machinery. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication to determine the applicability of the concessional tax rate, ensuring the rights of the bonafide assessee are not hampered.

The Tribunal held that the application of Section 68 instead of Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits constitutes a fundamental error that vitiates both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order. Citing previous judicial pronouncements, it ruled that such an addition made under the wrong charging section is unsustainable and void ab initio. Consequently, the AO was directed to delete the entire addition.

The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, held that the Pr. CIT's order passed under Section 263 was arbitrary, bad in law, and void ab initio due to this demonstrated non-application of mind regarding the applicable penalty provisions. Consequently, the Pr. CIT's order was quashed.

The Tribunal observed a possible incorrect interpretation of the ITR by the revenue authorities due to conflicting selections within the form. It held that the CIT(A) bears the onus to correctly interpret the return of income and verify the facts with adequate machinery. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication to determine the applicability of the concessional tax rate, ensuring the rights of the bonafide assessee are not hampered.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. This provides the assessee with one final opportunity to present their case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was framed without valid jurisdiction due to the absence of a Section 127 transfer order and the issuance of the notice by an officer without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid and void ab initio because it did not provide the mandatory minimum of seven clear days for compliance. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were deemed a nullity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a liberal approach for justice and technical issues with Form 35. The ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CPC was based on a wrong appreciation of facts and inappropriate application of legal provisions. The Tribunal found that the entire addition was perverse, arbitrary, and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the second ITO without a valid transfer order under Section 127 is without jurisdiction and therefore void ab initio. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings are also invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the six-year statutory period were invalid as the department failed to demonstrate any failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. The AO's justification, based solely on the amount of escaped income for reopening beyond six years, was not legally tenable for AY 2012-13, especially when no such failure to disclose facts was recorded. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that actions taken without jurisdiction or inconsistent with statutory prescriptions are null and void, thus quashing the reassessment proceedings.

The Ld. Sr. DR conceded that the appeal lacked legal validity. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, dismissed the appeal as infructuous, stating that it had no legal standing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no malafide intent. Citing a Bombay High Court judgment, it ruled that the CIT(A) is statutorily bound to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with the assessee granted one final opportunity to represent their case.

Following judicial precedents emphasizing natural justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de-novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present its case, with a directive to comply with future hearing notices.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was arbitrary and void ab initio due to the non-issuance and non-service of the notice under Section 142(1) in the prescribed manner. The lack of proper notice deprived the assessee of an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits should have been considered under Section 69A (unexplained money) as there was no evidence of investment, and the AO's invocation of Section 69 (unexplained investment) constituted a non-application of mind, making the addition void ab initio. Citing similar precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs. 29.76 Lakhs from the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's counsel stated that relevant documents were not available during the CIT(A) proceedings and requested one final opportunity to submit documentary evidence for the exemption claim under Section 54F. Considering the principles of natural justice and the substantial demand involved, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication to allow the assessee to present her evidence.