ITAT Raipur Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to represent their case on merits.

The Tribunal, following the principle of natural justice and consistency, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case on merits.

The ITAT, noting the ex-parte order by the CIT(Appeals) and the principle of natural justice, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case on merits.

The tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to furnish documents due to the short notice period. It ruled that the documents submitted to the CIT(Appeals) should not be treated as additional evidence and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, considering all submitted evidence.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of an appeal on its merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal condoned the delay of 219 days, adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to represent their case on merits.

The tribunal found no evidence of the alleged prior adjudication order from March 7, 2024. Consequently, it remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles.

The tribunal condoned the delay of 219 days, adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case on merits.

The tribunal held that an addition on estimation basis cannot be made without rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) and without resorting to assessment under Section 144. Such an action is unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that an addition on estimation basis cannot be made without rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) and without resorting to assessment under Section 144. Such an action is unsustainable in law.

The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Income Tax Department failed to provide the assessee with the information/materials that formed the 'reasons to believe' for initiating the reassessment proceedings. This omission violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the entire proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without admission, as the CIT(A) under the Faceless Appeal Scheme was not authorized to decide the admission of appeals based on Section 249(4). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after admitting the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without admission, as the CIT(A) under the Faceless Appeal Scheme was not authorized to decide the admission of appeals based on Section 249(4). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after admitting the appeals.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 after April 1, 2021, are invalid based on concessions made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the addition were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings because the approval for reopening the case under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as required for reassessments initiated more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law, following the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. The Revenue had agreed to drop all notices issued under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16.