ITAT Raipur Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal allowed the application for admission of additional evidence, with no objection from the Sr. DR. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, directing the first appellate authority to consider the admitted evidence after obtaining a remand report from the AO and pass a speaking order as per law.

The tribunal observed that the lower authorities incorrectly applied Section 68 or Section 69/69A and based their decision on mere suspicion without proper inquiry or application of mind. Relying on judicial precedents such as Sanjeev Kumar and Smt. Sarika Jain, the tribunal ruled that the addition made under incorrect sections and without adequately considering the documentary evidence was arbitrary and legally unsound. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition of Rs.10,50,000/-.

The ITAT noted the assessee's submission that the delay was covered by the Supreme Court's suo moto extension due to Covid-19, a point not presented to the CIT(A). With no objection from the CIT-DR, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to first decide the issue of condonation of delay after allowing the assessee to furnish evidence, and if condoned, then to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

The CIT(A) deleted both additions, finding that the AO's additions were based on presumptions and surmises without independent inquiry or corroborative evidence. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee had discharged its primary onus to prove the genuineness of purchases and the revenue failed to establish the assessee's involvement in bogus transactions, especially considering the assessee was under presumptive taxation scheme.

The ITAT condoned the 363-day delay, finding no malafide intention on the assessee's part. Applying principles of natural justice and citing judicial precedents, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to represent their case, with a direction to pass orders under Section 250(4) & (6) within three months.

The ITAT, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and citing judicial precedents, held that despite the assessee's non-compliance, a final opportunity must be granted. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a fresh order within three months.

The Tribunal, following precedents that emphasize natural justice, held that the ex-parte orders by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, without providing a final opportunity to the assessee, were in violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the assessee's right to be heard. It remanded the cases back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) is directed to pass orders under Section 250(4) and (6) within three months.

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice and citing judicial precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. It remanded all appeals for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A)/NFAC to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass an order within three months, considering this a final opportunity for the assessee.

The ITAT, following precedents emphasizing natural justice in welfare legislation like the Income Tax Act, held that the assessee should be granted a final opportunity. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded all cases back for de novo adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish any direct nexus between the assessee and the alleged price rigging, and critically, violated natural justice by not sharing information used against the assessee. Furthermore, since the incriminating material was sourced from a third-party search, the assessment should have been conducted under Sections 153C/153A, not Sections 147/148, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deemed arbitrary and bad in law.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the deletion of additions. It held the assessment order void ab initio due to gross violation of natural justice, as adverse information and reports were not shared with the assessee, denying an opportunity for defense or cross-examination. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the assessment should have been initiated under Section 153C, as incriminating material was found during a third-party search, not on the assessee's premises, making Section 147/148 inapplicable.

The ITAT, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance but emphasizing principles of natural justice and citing various judicial precedents, set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case, with a directive for the CIT(A) to pass an order within three months.

The Tribunal condoned the 121-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be bonafide and attributable to professional advice. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case to the AO for fresh assessment, considering the original assessment was completed under Section 144 and additional evidence was submitted for the first time before the CIT(A). This remand ensures natural justice and allows the AO to verify the new evidence and pass a speaking order as per Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules.

The Tribunal condoned the 363-day delay, finding it not deliberate or malafide. Emphasizing principles of natural justice and the right to be heard, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice and citing the Income Tax Act as welfare legislation, found no evidence of mala fide conduct by the assessee. It set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to be heard and comply with notices.

The Tribunal ruled that the lower appellate authority's order was flawed as it failed to consider the assessee's furnished documents and evidence, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh adjudication (de novo).

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no malafide intent on the assessee's part and emphasizing the welfare nature of the Income-tax Act. Applying principles of natural justice and relying on precedents, it set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present their case.

The tribunal noted that the A.O. failed to prove malafide intent or direct benefit to the assessee from the alleged bogus transactions, or provide evidence to justify the 100% addition under Section 69C. It upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that a 12.5% addition, as conceded by the assessee, was appropriate.

The tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide direct evidence linking the assessee to share rigging activities or proving her conscious involvement in obtaining bogus LTCG. The transactions were conducted through regular channels (stock exchange, banking, Demat, STT paid), and the additions were based on surmises, conjectures, and human probabilities without corroborating evidence. Consequently, the additions were deemed arbitrary and bad in law and were deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred by relying on a High Court decision which was subsequently distinguished by the same court. It held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, and if not proven, Section 69C of the Act is attracted, meaning the entire unproven expenditure should be added, not just a percentage. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's ruling in Pr. CIT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to comply with Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by admitting additional evidence and granting relief without first procuring a remand report or comments from the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after obtaining the necessary remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the penalty, ruling that merely withdrawing a claim or an addition being made after departmental detection is not sufficient for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) and Tribunal found that the AO failed to record specific adverse conclusive findings to prove that the transactions were sham or how the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, and that penalty cannot be levied automatically based solely on assessment findings.

The tribunal held that the turnover for F&O transactions must be calculated according to ICAI guidelines. Since the assessee's claimed F&O turnover was significantly less than the statutory limit and the AO's basis for higher business income needed further verification, the tribunal remanded the case back to the AO. The AO is directed to recompute the business turnover using ICAI methods and re-adjudicate the penalty issue under Section 271B afresh.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, finding them crucial for proper adjudication and their earlier non-submission due to bona fide reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted the Ld. CIT(A) erred by not examining the applicability of the second proviso to Section 12A(2) despite the assessee's Section 12AA registration being available. The Tribunal found this a discrepancy in the CIT(A)'s order and, with the Revenue's agreement, remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the specific contention of retrospective exemption under Sections 11 & 12.

The Tribunal set aside the section 68 addition and the expenditure disallowance, remanding both issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with proper reasoning and independent inquiry, effectively allowing grounds 1, 2, 3, and 5 for statistical purposes. The preliminary jurisdictional grounds (4 and 6) were dismissed as general.

Following judicial precedents regarding ex-parte orders passed by the first appellate authority, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is to be provided a final opportunity of being heard, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, and must comply with hearing notices. The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC erred by admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules and Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a proper remand report. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous since they had no grievance and did not file an application under Rule 27.

The ITAT, referencing a Bombay High Court judgment, ruled that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC deleted the substantial addition without proper application of mind, without calling for a remand report from the AO, and by accepting new evidence in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision in accordance with law, giving due opportunity to the assessee and allowing the CIT(A) to seek a remand report from the AO if deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal quashed the penalty, holding that the penalty order was vitiated as the AO failed to record specific satisfaction regarding under-reporting or misreporting, merely relying on the ad-hoc disallowance. It emphasized that additions made on an estimate basis do not fall within the parameters of "under-reported income" as per Section 270A(6)(c) and noted the CIT(A)'s failure to apply independent reasoning. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and directed the AO to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, finding that the A.O.'s original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The A.O. had failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications regarding the taxability of capital gains from the sale of properties which were clearly urban land within municipal limits, and had restricted the assessment only to cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct proper inquiries, did not follow principles of natural justice, and lacked reasoning in their orders. Consequently, the additions of Rs.3,00,000/- for unexplained capital and Rs.2,06,400/- for disallowed interest were found to be misplaced, illegal, and without authority of law. Both additions were deleted, and the appeal was allowed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that one more opportunity should be granted to substantiate the reasons for delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Following natural justice principles, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for *de novo* adjudication on the condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) shall decide the remaining issues on merits; otherwise, the CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the case in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal condoned the 299-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the lack of a counter-affidavit from the Revenue. However, despite multiple opportunities, the assessee largely failed to appear or represent their case on merits before the Tribunal. After reviewing the facts and legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, confirming that the AO's original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the lack of proper inquiry into significant escapement of income.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the property valuation to the DVO, as mandated by the third proviso to Section 56(2)(x) and Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, especially when the assessee disputed the stamp duty value and the transaction involved tribal land. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO with a direction to refer it to the DVO.

Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them merely for non-prosecution. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits within three months.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) failed to fulfill the mandate of Section 250(4) & (6) by not adjudicating the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on the merits of the bogus purchases, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles and the relevant sections of the Act.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, confirming the addition of Rs. 20,81,900/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This amount was subjected to tax under section 115BBE. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence for the source of the cash deposits, dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) summarily upheld the addition without proper enquiry or reasoning, violating Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act. It also noted the CIT(A)'s failure to adjudicate the assessee's additional ground regarding unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and a speaking order after due enquiry.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's repeated absence, decided the appeal ex-parte. Citing similar cases, it upheld the PCIT's order under Section 263. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest because it lacked proper inquiry into the assessee's income discrepancies and failure to comply with audit requirements.

Despite the assessee's non-appearance for multiple hearings, the Tribunal proceeded with the case. The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, confirming that the AO's original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the failure to properly inquire into the estimated net profit and the applicability of Section 44AB. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment was done in a summary manner without proper verification.