ITAT Raipur Judgments — September 2025

The ITAT condoned the 461-day delay. It ruled that the CIT(A), as a quasi-judicial authority, is statutorily obligated to decide an appeal on merits and cannot summarily dismiss it for non-prosecution. Citing various sections of the Income Tax Act and judicial precedents, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory prerequisite for completing an assessment under Section 143(3) or Section 144. Failure to issue this notice vitiates the assessment.

The tribunal held that, following the principles of consistency and completeness, the penalty appeals should also be remanded to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication. The penalty will only survive if the quantum additions are sustained; otherwise, it will be quashed. This decision was supported by judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

The tribunal held that, following the principles of consistency and completeness, the penalty appeals should also be remanded to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication. The penalty will only survive if the quantum additions are sustained; otherwise, it will be quashed. This decision was supported by judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 days. It set aside the ex-parte 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 condoned the delay, acknowledging that it was not due to the assessee's deliberate conduct. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal condoned the 93-day delay, finding no deliberate or malafide conduct on the assessee's part. Recognizing the assessee's request for a final opportunity, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final chance to present relevant evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings lacked legal sustainability. Therefore, the penalty appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, remanding the quantum appeal for a de novo adjudication as per law and natural justice, in accordance with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. It was clarified that the findings regarding the penalty proceedings, where Form 5 was obtained, were correct and required no further adjudication.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC, as a quasi-judicial authority, cannot dismiss appeals *in limine* for delay or non-prosecution. It emphasized that the CIT(A) must conduct an inquiry into the reasons for delay, as per Section 249(3) read with 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, and then adjudicate the matters on their merits, adopting a justice-oriented approach. The ITAT, citing judicial precedents, clarified that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO and they are obligated to dispose of appeals on merits.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC, as a quasi-judicial authority, cannot dismiss appeals *in limine* for delay or non-prosecution. It emphasized that the CIT(A) must conduct an inquiry into the reasons for delay, as per Section 249(3) read with 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, and then adjudicate the matters on their merits, adopting a justice-oriented approach. The ITAT, citing judicial precedents, clarified that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO and they are obligated to dispose of appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was void ab initio as it was obtained in a mechanical and summary manner without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment proceedings based on such approval were rendered non-est in the eyes of law.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC, as a quasi-judicial authority, cannot dismiss appeals *in limine* for delay or non-prosecution. It emphasized that the CIT(A) must conduct an inquiry into the reasons for delay, as per Section 249(3) read with 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, and then adjudicate the matters on their merits, adopting a justice-oriented approach. The ITAT, citing judicial precedents, clarified that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO and they are obligated to dispose of appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the unsigned approval under Section 151 of the Act was violative of Section 282A(1), rendering it invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to complete the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO when the original order was not passed under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remanded issues afresh.