ITAT Raipur Judgments — August 2025

The tribunal condoned the 431-day delay, attributing it to a technical issue with Form 35 and not malafide conduct. Emphasizing principles of natural justice and citing various precedents, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) acted arbitrarily by dismissing the appeal without proper inquiry, contravening Section 249(3) and related provisions. Citing the Bombay High Court ruling in `CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)`, the Tribunal emphasized the CIT(A)'s obligation to investigate and decide appeals on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and remanded the case for *de novo* adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was indeed granted mechanically, lacking independent application of mind by the competent authority and relying solely on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction. Citing various High Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that such a mechanical approval vitiates the legislative intent of Section 153D, rendering the assessment order void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid, void ab initio, and quashed them. It found that the department failed to meet the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147 for reopening beyond four years and violated principles of natural justice by not sharing the "reasons to believe" and underlying information with the assessee.

The Tribunal, emphasizing natural justice and following precedents from High Courts and Supreme Court (e.g., *Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni* and *National Thermal Power Company Ltd.*), held that an ex-parte order by the first appellate authority without adjudication on merits necessitates a remand. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case.

The ITAT, citing the principles of natural justice and precedents, set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The case was remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present their case. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass an order as per Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act within three months.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present their case. This decision was based on principles of natural justice, ensuring that the appeal is decided on merits and not due to non-compliance.

The tribunal, relying on prior judgments of ITAT and High Courts, held that the mandatory requirement of a signature for notices and other documents under Section 282A(1) of the Act applies even to electronically issued notices. It distinguished between 'authentication' (Section 282A(2)) and 'mandatory signing' (Section 282A(1)), concluding that the unsigned notice under Section 148 was invalid, void ab initio, and thus the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to complete the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of notice under Section 143(2) is a 'sine qua non' for framing an assessment under Section 143(3). Since the department failed to demonstrate the issuance and service of such notice, the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's decision to quash the reassessment order was upheld. The assessee's appeal became infructuous as they had already received relief.

The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings are invalid if the underlying "reasons to believe" material, such as ITS details, is not supplied to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be signed by the competent authority to be valid, and an unsigned notice renders the entire reassessment void ab initio. Consequently, all reassessments were quashed due to these procedural defects.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to apply his mind independently, sustaining an addition based on an inconsistent amount and without proper justification. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that additions made by applying incorrect or irrelevant charging sections (e.g., Section 69 or 69A for unexplained investments when it's unexplained cash deposits) are not sustainable and are void ab initio. Consequently, the addition made under Section 69A was deemed misplaced, uncalled for, arbitrary, and bad in law.

The CIT(Appeals) granted relief to the assessee, finding it a case of mistaken identity. The contract note and broker's statements showed transactions for 'Manish Kumar Mohta, HUF' (Kolkata address) using the assessee's PAN, but the assessee (Manish Kumar Mehta, Durg) denied these transactions and his bank statements showed no corresponding credit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, concluding that the assessee was not the beneficiary of the impugned transactions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the reassessment proceedings were arbitrary, bad in law, and void ab initio because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessee with the material documents (ITS details) forming the basis of the 'reasons to believe'. Furthermore, for one appeal, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was found to be unsigned, which, in light of Section 282A(1) of the Act and various High Court judgments, rendered it invalid, thus vitiating the entire reassessment process.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte dismissal order, remanding the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obliged to dispose of appeals on merits and does not have the power to summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, citing the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply with hearing notices.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the documents/materials forming the 'reasons to believe' were not supplied to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, for ITA No. 444/RPR/2025, the Section 148 notice was unsigned, rendering it invalid, arbitrary, and void ab initio, in violation of Section 282A(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal quashed the reassessments, thereby allowing all appeals.

The Tribunal ruled that a mandatory order under Section 127 of the Act is essential for transferring jurisdiction. Since no such order was issued by the competent authority, the transfer was beyond the scope of Section 127, rendering the assessment framed by the ITO without valid jurisdiction, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the penalty imposed also became infructuous.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the case back for de-novo adjudication on merits. It directed the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity for hearing to the assessee, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice, and to pass an order within three months as per Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act.

For the first addition (u/s 68), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee sufficiently proved the source of interest income, having offered it to tax, and the AO failed to rebut this. For the second addition (u/s 69C), the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the assessee discharged its onus with relevant details, and the AO's addition was based solely on the absence of ITRs and unconfirmed 133(6) notices, which the CIT(A) found unwarranted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it not to be deliberate or malafide. Emphasizing principles of natural justice and the right to be heard, and citing judicial precedents on ex-parte orders, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee one final opportunity to present their case and pass an order under Section 250(4) & (6) within three months.

The Tribunal condoned the 405-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding it to be for genuine reasons. It held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal in limine for a minor delay without merits adjudication was unjustified and contrary to the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 197 days, finding no deliberate or malafide conduct on the assessee's part. Emphasizing principles of natural justice and citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the case for de-novo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass an order within three months under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal condoned the 42-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to conduct any inquiry as mandated by the Act and summarily dismissed the appeal without proper verification of facts or the capital accounts provided by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made under Section 69A was misplaced, uncalled for, arbitrary, and bad in law due to the non-application of mind by the lower authorities, especially since the facts did not align with unexplained investments under Section 69 or unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a mandatory transfer order under Section 127 rendered the assessment framed by the ITO without proper jurisdiction void ab initio. It clarified that legal issues going to the root of the matter, like jurisdiction, can be raised at any appellate stage, distinguishing the Supreme Court's 'KIIT' judgment and relying on 'NTPC'. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)/NFAC had deleted the original addition u/s 68, the assessee had no grievance regarding that. The direction to tax capital gains was consequential, and an appeal effect order had already been issued by the A.O. If the assessee was aggrieved by the capital gains addition, the proper legal recourse was to file an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC again, not the Tribunal at this stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal but rejected the argument that an invalid ROI is not equivalent to non-filing. However, it ruled that the AO's 'reasons to believe' were vitiated and perverse due to a lack of independent application of mind, as the AO proceeded on the premise of a property purchase but concluded with an allegation of undisclosed capital gains from a *sale* that did not occur in the relevant financial year. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding that the invalid reasons to believe deprived the AO of valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the unsigned notice issued under Section 143(2) was violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act, which mandates a signature for all notices, irrespective of whether they are in paper or electronic form. Consequently, the notice was deemed invalid, arbitrary, and void ab initio, leading to the quashing of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) for lack of proper jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on high court and Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 143(2) notice and signature requirement.

The tribunal condoned the 327-day delay, finding it was due to medical issues and not deliberate conduct. Upholding principles of natural justice and citing several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide a final opportunity to the assessee and pass an order within three months under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly applied Section 69, meant for unexplained investments, whereas the facts pertained to unexplained cash deposits which should fall under Section 69A. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that applying the wrong charging section vitiates the addition and indicates non-application of mind by the quasi-judicial authorities. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69 was deemed uncalled for and deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, remanding the matter for de novo adjudication on merits. This decision was based on principles of natural justice, ensuring the assessee gets a final opportunity to be heard, despite prior non-compliance, and directing compliance with future hearing notices.

The Tribunal observed a discrepancy between department records showing Rs. 25 lakhs deposit and the assessee's submitted bank statement showing nil. It found that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC failed to conduct a proper enquiry as mandated by Sections 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after a thorough enquiry, giving the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.