ITAT Raipur Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind by the competent authority. Consequently, the assessment order based on such invalid approval was quashed.

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 condoned the delay, citing a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that reopening beyond four years without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts violates the first proviso to Section 147. It also held that not sharing the information used for reopening violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to represent their case on merits, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

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 Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated as the ITS details, forming the basis for the 'reasons to believe', were not supplied to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated as the ITS details, forming the basis for the 'reasons to believe', were not supplied to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

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 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 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 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 held that the revisionary order under Section 263 was sustainable for issues not examined by the AO, such as employee's PF/ESIC contributions and donations. However, for the unsecured loan, since the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, the revisionary order was considered beyond the AO's jurisdiction.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated as the ITS details, forming the basis for the 'reasons to believe', were not supplied to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the unsigned notice under Section 148 of the Act is violative of Section 282A(1) and is therefore invalid, arbitrary, and void ab initio. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to complete the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to apply his mind independently, as he considered the entire amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- instead of the disputed Rs. 2,30,500/-. The addition was deemed misplaced, arbitrary, and bad in law.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. A final opportunity is granted to the assessee to present their case on merits before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the transfer of jurisdiction without a proper order under Section 127 is invalid. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty imposed are quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was because the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of jurisdiction without a proper order under Section 127 is invalid. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty imposed are quashed.

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 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.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee did not get a chance to present their case on merits, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This is to provide one last opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the revenue's acceptance and lack of evidence of deliberate non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

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 held that the addition made under Section 69A was misplaced and arbitrary, as the CIT(Appeals) failed to conduct proper enquiry and verify the assessee's claims. The Tribunal relied on judicial pronouncements regarding non-application of mind by quasi-judicial authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio due to the lack of a mandatory transfer order under Section 127. Therefore, the assessee's challenge to the jurisdiction was valid.

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 set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte and that the principles of natural justice require a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically without application of mind and in the absence of relevant documents. Consequently, the assessment orders based on this invalid approval were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically without application of mind and in the absence of relevant documents. Consequently, the assessment orders based on this invalid approval were quashed.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 1647 days, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 1647 days, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 1647 days, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.

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 delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the 'reasons to believe' recorded by the AO were perverse and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future hearing notices, and the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was instructed to pass an order within three months.

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.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69 of the Act was misplaced, arbitrary, and bad in law due to the incorrect application of the provision. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.