ITAT Raipur Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred by not providing the assessee with information used against them and by not considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. This violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the PCIT's order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for computation under Section 200A, was introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for computation under Section 200A, was introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for computation under Section 200A, was introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.

Relying on the Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the ITAT ruled that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's explanation was arbitrary and based on mere suspicion, without conducting necessary inquiries or bringing forth negating facts. The revenue failed to prove that the deposited money was from an undisclosed source, especially since the initial withdrawal was from a declared source. Consequently, the addition made under Section 69A was deemed misplaced.

The ITAT granted the assessee's request for admission of additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, as per Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) correctly obtained the necessary approval for issuing the notice under Section 148, as the approval under Section 148A(d) satisfied the requirements of the proviso to Section 148. The Tribunal also upheld the Pr. CIT's finding that the AO failed to conduct a complete inquiry regarding the shortage of diesel, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The tribunal condoned the 97-day delay in filing the appeal, adopting a liberal approach. It remanded the issue of PDS income to the A.O. for re-evaluation, instructing to consider expenses against gross receipts to determine the net taxable value. For the interest income from the co-operative bank, the tribunal held that it is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, citing judicial precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had correctly added back the provision for bad and doubtful debts to its taxable income only once. The AO's addition of Rs. 17,00,00,000/- was based on a misconception of a double claim, which the CIT(A) had rightly deleted after verifying the facts from records. The Tribunal concurred that the assessee's claim was a one-time deduction allowable under the Act.

The Tribunal held that Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, providing for exemption from income tax, is applicable to land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. Consequently, the compensation received by the assessee is not exigible to tax.