ITAT Raipur Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed without a valid transfer order under section 127 and without the notice being issued by the assessing officer is without jurisdiction and therefore void ab initio.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, confirming that the exemption under Section 11 was correctly denied due to the assessee's failure to file the audit report in Form 10B. It ruled that without fulfilling the conditions for exemption, the trust is assessed as an AOP, and therefore, the claim for administrative/establishment expenses cannot be allowed, leading to the entire gross receipts being brought to tax.

The ITAT, citing a Bombay High Court judgment, held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to dispose of an appeal on merits and cannot summarily dismiss it for non-prosecution. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity for compliance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Citing principles of natural justice and various judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It agreed that the assessee had genuine reasons for non-compliance and that remanding the case to the AO for fresh adjudication was a plausible course of action, adhering to natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal emphasized that fraud vitiates all proceedings and directed the revenue authorities to investigate thoroughly for tax evasion.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal emphasized that fraud vitiates all proceedings and directed the revenue authorities to investigate thoroughly for tax evasion.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was ineligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the completion certificate was obtained beyond the stipulated period. The Tribunal found no evidence to prove the certificate was issued and furnished within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to adopt a judicious and liberal approach as mandated by judicial precedents, which require appellate authorities to deal with matters on merits rather than dismissing appeals summarily. Finding no cogent reason for not condoning the delay and acknowledging the assessee's inability to file a proper appeal without receiving essential documents, the Tribunal condoned the 122-day delay. The matter was then remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for *de novo* adjudication as per law and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1, deleting the addition on cash deposits, finding the invocation of Section 69 to be void ab initio due to incorrect application of law. Grounds No. 2 and 3 were remanded to the AO for factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee to comply. It emphasized the need for the revenue authorities to thoroughly investigate potential tax evasion and fraud.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing that it was not due to the assessee's fault. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a government agency, could not claim ignorance of the law as a justification for the delay. The reasons provided for condonation were general and lacked supporting evidence, thus not constituting a sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a government agency, could not claim ignorance of the law as a justification for the delay. The reasons provided for condonation were general and lacked supporting evidence, thus not constituting a sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a government agency, could not claim ignorance of the law as a justification for the delay. The reasons provided for condonation were general and lacked supporting evidence, thus not constituting a sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were clearly violated by the Revenue. The "credible information" and the "list of penny stock shares as per CBDT," which formed the basis for the additions, were never provided to the assessee, preventing them from making effective submissions. The Tribunal found no evidence on record to suggest these documents were shared. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed to have a shortfall in compliance with natural justice. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT-DR's suggestion for a remand. The order of the CIT(A)-NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A)-NFAC was directed to furnish all requested documents to the assessee, receive the assessee's reply, and then pass a speaking order in accordance with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The assessee was also directed to comply with hearing notices. The grounds of appeal and cross-objections were allowed for statistical purposes without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were clearly violated by the Revenue. The "credible information" and the "list of penny stock shares as per CBDT," which formed the basis for the additions, were never provided to the assessee, preventing them from making effective submissions. The Tribunal found no evidence on record to suggest these documents were shared. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed to have a shortfall in compliance with natural justice. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT-DR's suggestion for a remand. The order of the CIT(A)-NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A)-NFAC was directed to furnish all requested documents to the assessee, receive the assessee's reply, and then pass a speaking order in accordance with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The assessee was also directed to comply with hearing notices. The grounds of appeal and cross-objections were allowed for statistical purposes without going into the merits of the case.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to conduct necessary inquiries using powers under sections 133(6) or 131 regarding the unsecured loans and did not properly exercise powers under section 250(4) and (6) for both issues. Consequently, the ITAT remitted both the addition for unexplained cash credits and the ad-hoc disallowance back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after making proper inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were also deemed non-est.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were clearly violated by the Revenue. The "credible information" and the "list of penny stock shares as per CBDT," which formed the basis for the additions, were never provided to the assessee, preventing them from making effective submissions. The Tribunal found no evidence on record to suggest these documents were shared. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed to have a shortfall in compliance with natural justice. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT-DR's suggestion for a remand. The order of the CIT(A)-NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A)-NFAC was directed to furnish all requested documents to the assessee, receive the assessee's reply, and then pass a speaking order in accordance with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The assessee was also directed to comply with hearing notices. The grounds of appeal and cross-objections were allowed for statistical purposes without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to represent their case on merits before the first appellate authority.

The ITAT condoned the 339-day delay in filing the appeal, noting no intentional or mala fide delay by the assessee. It found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to provide the assessee a final opportunity to present its case.