ITAT Raipur Judgments — September 2025

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 208/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs SECL, BILASPUR, WEST JKD COLLIERY

ITA 292/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 214/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 201/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 200/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 211/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs SECL, O/O CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TAN- JBPS02072A), RAIGARH

ITA 279/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 213/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 202/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs SECL (TAN- BPLS04697A), KORBA

ITA 286/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD. (TAN- JBPS02667A), KUSMUNDA

ITA 280/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (TAN-BPLS04617E) , SURGUJA

ITA 290/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (TAN- JBPS13157E), KORBA

ITA 289/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 204/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 223/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 222/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs SECL, BILASPUR, SECL HASDEO AREA

ITA 301/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

SHREEE AMRITESHWARYAI MINING & MECH PVT. LTD., KORBA,KORBA vs DCIT, CIRCLE1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 506/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a reasonable period, thus violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 220/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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.

RESHAM GRAMODYOG SADAN, CHAMPA,AT/POST- UMRELI,VIA-CHAMPA,TAHSIL-BARPALI,KORBA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KORBA (C.G.), MAHANADI COMPLEX, NIHARIKA ROAD, KORBA (C.G.)

ITA 533/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The ITAT condoned both the 308-day delay in filing the appeal before it and the 1434-day delay in the first appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide. Citing various statutory provisions (Sections 250 and 251) and judicial precedents, the ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had erred in summarily dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating it on merits. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to the assessee to comply with future hearing notices.

M/S SHREE HANUMAN PULSES, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs ITO, WARD-2(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 460/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is statutorily bound to dispose of an appeal on its merits and does not possess the power to summarily dismiss it for non-prosecution. Citing the Bombay High Court, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee.

DILIP TRIPATHI,AMBIKAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBIKAPUR

ITA 528/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC cannot summarily dismiss an appeal based solely on delay without first considering the condonation request for the delay under Section 249(3) and then adjudicating the appeal on its merits as per Sections 250(4) & (6). The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to follow the prescribed legal procedure.

KNS VINAYAK MINING AND INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, KORBA,KORBA vs ACIT, KORBA, KORBA

ITA 483/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the 'Vis major' and adopting a liberal 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.

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was made on a wrong appreciation of facts and inappropriate application of legal provisions, making it perverse, arbitrary, and bad in law. Therefore, the addition was liable to be deleted.

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 160/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was based on information unearthed during a search on a third party, Section 153C was applicable, not Section 147. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were quashed.

MAHENDRA PRASAD YADAV,DIPADIHKALAN vs ITO-1 AMBIKAPUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE AMBIKAPUR

ITA 530/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent, but a petition confirmed the current appeal was filed by mistake. The Ld. Sr. DR concurred that the appeal was infructuous. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to its mistaken filing.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

ITA 153/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was based on information unearthed during a search on a third party, Section 153C was applicable, not Section 147. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were quashed.

SURESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,BILASPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2(1), BILASPU, BILASPUR

ITA 370/RPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 491 days, noting the reasons were circumstantial and without malafide. It held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits.

DAS PROCESSORS,RAJNANDGAON vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHILAI 1(1), BHILAI

ITA 394/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The ITAT condoned the 109-day delay, classifying it as a technical issue rather than malafide intent, and emphasized a liberal approach for condonation for substantial justice. It held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to decide appeals on their merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs MANIT GUPTA, TILDA NEORA

ITA 450/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's cross-appeal and applying principles of natural justice, decided to remand the Revenue's appeal also to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. This is to provide a final opportunity for adjudication on merits. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is directed to pass an order within three months after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

MOHAMMAD PARVEZ, BHILAI,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 501/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the A.O exceeded his jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny (which was only for cash deposits) to examine the loan from the wife without any prior authorization from a competent authority. Citing Supreme Court precedents on statutory powers and jurisdiction, the Tribunal concluded that the A.O's action was without valid inherent jurisdiction, arbitrary, perverse, and bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the A.O to delete the addition.

ALANKAR ALLOYS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 429/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no malafide intention on the assessee's part. It ruled that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated under Sections 250, 251, and 246A of the Income Tax Act to dispose of appeals on merits and lacks the power to summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the cases back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to comply.

SAMARPIT SEVA SANSTHA SUKMA,DHULE vs ITO, WARD JAGDALPUR, JADALPUR

ITA 463/RPR/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2025-26Remanded

The Tribunal held that once a provisional registration is granted and is in force, it remains valid unless formally revoked or cancelled through due process. The CIT(E) lacked jurisdiction to reject subsequent applications for regular registration based on the alleged invalidity of the provisional registration without initiating revocation proceedings. Since the applications for regular registration were filed within the prescribed time limits, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration on merits after providing effective hearings.

POOJA AGARWAL, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 431/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Allowed (for statistical purposes)

The tribunal condoned the delay, finding it circumstantial and not mala fide. It held that the CIT(A)/NFAC has a statutory obligation under Sections 251(1)(a) and (b) read with the Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Citing judicial precedent, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to comply with future hearing notices.

MONA ASHWIN LODHA, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 399/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the 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.

SAMARPIT SEVA SANSTHA SUKMA,DHULE vs ITO, WARD JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

ITA 457/RPR/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2025-26Remanded

The Tribunal held that once a provisional registration is granted and is in force, it remains valid unless formally revoked or cancelled through due process. The CIT(E) lacked jurisdiction to reject subsequent applications for regular registration based on the alleged invalidity of the provisional registration without initiating revocation proceedings. Since the applications for regular registration were filed within the prescribed time limits, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration on merits after providing effective hearings.

ALANKAR ALLOYS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 428/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no malafide intention on the assessee's part. It ruled that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated under Sections 250, 251, and 246A of the Income Tax Act to dispose of appeals on merits and lacks the power to summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the cases back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to comply.

AKASH AGARWAL, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 433/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Allowed (for statistical purposes)

The tribunal condoned the delay, finding it circumstantial and not mala fide. It held that the CIT(A)/NFAC has a statutory obligation under Sections 251(1)(a) and (b) read with the Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Citing judicial precedent, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to comply with future hearing notices.

ALANKAR ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 430/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no malafide intention on the assessee's part. It ruled that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated under Sections 250, 251, and 246A of the Income Tax Act to dispose of appeals on merits and lacks the power to summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the cases back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to comply.

POOJA AGARWAL, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 432/RPR/2025[2019-2020]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020Allowed (for statistical purposes)

The tribunal condoned the delay, finding it circumstantial and not mala fide. It held that the CIT(A)/NFAC has a statutory obligation under Sections 251(1)(a) and (b) read with the Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Citing judicial precedent, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to comply with future hearing notices.

RINKI OIL EXTRUCTION PVT. LTD., RAJIM,RAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 322/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed for statistical purposes

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits. The tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to provide the assessee a final opportunity of being heard, in adherence to principles of natural justice, and to pass an order as per Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act.

SATISH KUMAR AGRAWAL, BHILAI,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 542/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the 567-day delay under Section 249(3), recognizing the Covid-19 pandemic as sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal *in limine* without addressing its merits, citing a Bombay High Court judgment on the mandatory nature of disposing appeals on merits under Sections 250 and 251. The case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for *de novo* adjudication on merits.

TRIDEV ISPAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 427/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable and effective opportunity for the assessee to present its case, as the notices were issued with less than fifteen clear days for compliance. Therefore, the ex-parte dismissals were irregular.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA vs M/S BUDHIA AUTO, MAIN ROAD

ITA 158/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 43B applies to deductions claimed in the profit and loss account. Since the assessee did not claim these unpaid statutory liabilities as a deduction, the disallowance was incorrect. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.

TRIDEV ISPAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 426/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable and effective opportunity for the assessee to present its case, as the notices were issued with less than fifteen clear days for compliance. Therefore, the ex-parte dismissals were irregular.

OMAX MINERALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 420/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) provided insufficient opportunity (less than 15 days) to the assessee to respond to the hearing notices, thus violating principles of natural justice. Citing a High Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de-novo under Section 250(6) of the Act.

LOKESHWAR KUMAR SAHU,DHAMTARI vs INCOME TAX ASSESSING OFFICER, DHAMTARI

ITA 510/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to conduct mandatory inquiries under Section 250(4) and (6) regarding the genuineness and source of the loan, dismissing the appeal based solely on suspicion without analyzing the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the addition under Section 69A was arbitrary and perverse, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the deletion of the addition.

SIVA PRASAD VEDULA, BHILAI,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 49/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

MAHENDRA PRASAD YADAV,DIPADIHKALAN vs ITO-1 AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

ITA 526/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Heard10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, exercising powers under the newly introduced proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (inserted by Finance Act, 2024), set aside the ex-parte assessment and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de-novo assessment to consider the new submissions. The ITAT upheld the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's decision, finding no justification to interfere, and consequently dismissed the assessee's appeal.

NANAK RAM TANWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 470/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: Heard10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) is statutorily bound to dispose of an appeal on merits and cannot summarily dismiss it for non-prosecution. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to comply with notices.