ITAT Raipur Judgments — December 2025

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 condoned the delay due to 'Vis-major' and the ex-parte order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was based on borrowed satisfaction from the Assessing Officer and lacked independent application of mind by the competent authority. Therefore, the approval was void ab initio, rendering subsequent proceedings non-est.

The Tribunal held that compliance with Section 80-IA(7), including the timely filing of Form 10CCB, is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80-IAC. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh examination.

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 set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the opening cash balance was correctly carried forward from the previous year, as confirmed by the AO's report. It also found that the agricultural income claimed by the assessee was supported by documentary evidence verified by the AO.

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 held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as there was no valid transfer order under Section 127 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to represent their case on merits, adhering to principles of natural justice.

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, citing a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

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 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 held that the unsigned notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is violative of Section 282A(1) and is therefore invalid, arbitrary, and void ab initio. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to complete the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and a confirmation from the vendor, demonstrating that the entire payment was made through banking channels and not in cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.

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 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 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 ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and directed the assessee to make full compliance on a final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require a final opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits. Since the CIT(Appeals) order was ex-parte and not adjudicated on merits, the matter was remanded for denovo adjudication.