ITAT Raipur Judgments — December 2025

The ITAT condoned the 490-day delay, accepting it as 'Vis-major' and finding no deliberate or malafide conduct by the assessee, citing various judicial precedents advocating a liberal approach to condonation of delay for substantial justice. The ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to duly comply with future hearing notices as this would be the final opportunity, and the CIT(Appeals) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic, perverse, and in violation of natural justice, as it failed to conduct proper enquiry, verify Form 26AS, or consider the assessee's explanation and supporting affidavit regarding the tax consultant's error. The Revenue did not dispute the assessee's actual income or identify any undisclosed income. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and based on borrowed satisfaction from the Assessing Officer, lacking any independent application of mind. Citing multiple High Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that such a void approval vitiates the legislative intent of Section 153D, rendering any subsequent assessment proceedings non-est in the eyes of law. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the 280-day delay in filing the appeal, citing professional advice as sufficient cause and adopting a liberal approach in line with Supreme Court precedents. On merits, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication under Section 251. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on delay without considering merits. Applying principles of natural justice, it directed the CIT(A) to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to file a condonation petition under Section 249(3). The CIT(A) must first decide on the delay condonation and, if condoned, then address the merits, specifically considering the Supreme Court's decision in *Checkmate Services* and the timeliness of the deposits according to statutes.

The Tribunal observed that the issue of bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Jurisdictional High Court in several other cases. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision and then adjudicate the appeal de novo based on the High Court's guidelines.

The Tribunal condoned the 274-day delay in filing the appeal, noting no deliberate malafide conduct by the assessee. Upholding principles of natural justice and citing precedents, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity to be heard as per Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.

Following its precedent in `Rahul Tyagi Vs. ITO`, the Tribunal held that the assessment framed by ITO-3(1) Raipur was without jurisdiction, invalid, and bad in law due to the absence of a mandatory transfer order under Section 127 of the Act. The assessment order was quashed based on this jurisdictional defect, rendering other grounds academic.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard. The matter is remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a final opportunity granted to the assessee to present their case. The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order within three months under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for cash in hand, accumulated from agricultural income for his daughter's wedding, to be reasonable. Given that the revenue accepted the assessee's farmer status and failed to provide rebuttal evidence, the addition of Rs. 7,41,123/- was held arbitrary and deleted. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 304 days, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court precedents, noting the delay was not deliberate and merits should not be discarded. It set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity and directing them to comply with future hearing notices.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal was based on a misreading of facts regarding the VSVS declaration, which was actually for penalty proceedings and not the quantum addition. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication to correctly ascertain the scope of the VSVS settlement and then decide on the merits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed physical submissions which were not considered by the NFAC after the appeal's migration to the faceless regime. Emphasizing principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(4) & (6), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. The matter was remanded for *de novo* adjudication, with directions for the NFAC to verify the original submissions or allow the assessee to re-submit if they cannot be located due to the regime change.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's wife had sufficient financial capacity, evidenced by her balance sheet showing a capital account of Rs.59,84,811/- and a furniture entry of Rs.17,50,000/-. It concluded that the CIT(A) had misinterpreted the financial statements, and thus, the addition under section 69C was misplaced and bad in law. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal found that the Revenue authorities failed to conduct any inquiry or verification into the assessee's detailed submissions and supporting evidence, which included over 100 challans, and did not provide any contrary evidence. Since the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing a plausible explanation and evidence for the cash deposits, the addition made under section 69A was deemed arbitrary, bad in law, and unsustainable. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside, and the addition was deleted.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to first consider the assessee's application for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) of the Act, taking into account the additional evidence. If the delay is condoned, then the CIT(A) shall adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal, emphasizing principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). It remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case on merits with submissions and evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals), holding that dismissing an appeal without adjudication on merits, particularly when there's no evidence of deliberate non-compliance, violates the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case as per Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act.