ITAT Raipur Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back. The assessee was given a final opportunity to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions and principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back for denovo adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the net profit rate applied by the AO was not based on comparable cases or past trends. The reasoning of the CIT(A) for not admitting additional evidence was also found unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding them on merits. The CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals in writing with well-reasoned orders, even if the assessee does not appear, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was not based on cogent reasons and that it is mandatory for a quasi-judicial authority to consider all relevant evidence. Therefore, the orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making ad-hoc disallowances and additions without first rejecting the books of account. It was established that rejection of books of account is a prerequisite for making an estimation of income. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence pertaining to a bank statement.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without proper adjudication on merits violates the principles of natural justice. Following precedent, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC without providing a proper opportunity for hearing violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC, as a quasi-judicial authority, erred by not considering the additional evidence without cogent reasons. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals back for fresh consideration, with directions to admit and consider the additional evidence and issue a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order without proper adjudication violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was non-compliant, principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed one final opportunity to the assessee to present evidence regarding the delay to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to decide on the condonation of delay and then proceed to decide the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order without proper adjudication on merits violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to determine the facts and circumstances regarding the bogus purchase bills additions at this level. It would also not serve any purpose to keep the matter pending. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and then adjudicate denovo.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance, without proper adjudication on merits, violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to decide the issue of bogus purchase bills as it is sub-judice before the High Court. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue afresh after the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues on law and facts are sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision and then adjudicate denovo.

The Tribunal held that due to the pendency of appeals before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the issues at this stage. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision and then adjudicate denovo.

The Tribunal held that due to the matters being sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the current appeals. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision and then decide the issues denovo.

The Tribunal held that since similar matters were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would not be appropriate to adjudicate the present appeals. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal determined it was inappropriate to adjudicate matters that are already sub-judice before the High Court, whose decision will be binding. Consequently, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC with instructions to await the High Court's decision and then adjudicate de novo according to law and natural justice principles. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that due to the pending matters before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the appeals. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to be decided denovo after the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that it cannot adjudicate on issues that are sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision and then decide afresh.

Given that the issues are sub-judice before the Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal found it inappropriate to intervene or adjudicate. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand all appeals back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The first appellate authority is instructed to await the High Court's decision, which will serve as the primary guideline, and then adjudicate the matters de novo, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that due to the pendency of similar matters before the Hon'ble High Court, it would be appropriate to remand the appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The first appellate authority was directed to decide the issues denovo after the High Court's decision, following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify or rebut it, violating Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, relying on multiple judicial pronouncements, including the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory (sine qua non) for an assessment framed under Section 143(3) and in reassessment proceedings under Section 147. Since the department conceded the non-issuance of this mandatory notice, the assessment was deemed invalid, arbitrary, and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment was quashed, rendering the grounds on merits academic.

The tribunal held that dismissing an appeal ex-parte without substantial adjudication on merits violates principles of natural justice. It referenced judicial pronouncements emphasizing the need for a proper hearing and the assessee's right to present their case.

The Tribunal deemed it inappropriate to decide the matters while similar issues are pending before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC with directions to await the High Court's decision, which will guide the fresh adjudication of facts and law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the matters were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would not be appropriate to adjudicate the issues. The Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision and then adjudicate afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC should have provided one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits, in line with principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that due to the pendency of similar matters before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the current appeals. The appeals were therefore remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that since the matters are sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal cannot intervene. It is appropriate to remand the matters back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh after the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that due to the pendency of similar issues before the Hon'ble High Court, it cannot adjudicate the present matters and must wait for the High Court's decision. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after the High Court's order.

The ITAT, citing previous Division Bench decisions and principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that merely filing an appeal does not suffice; effective prosecution is required. Citing principles of natural justice and case law, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

Recognizing that the core issues are sub-judice before the High Court, the Tribunal decided it would be inappropriate to intervene and adjudicate. Therefore, all appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC, with explicit instructions to await the High Court's decisions, which will serve as the guiding principles for fresh adjudication on merits.

Following the principles of natural justice and various judicial precedents, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. All matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is granted one final opportunity to comply with hearing notices and present their case, with a direction for the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to pass speaking orders within three months.

The Tribunal held that since the matters were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it could not adjudicate on such issues. The Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision and then adjudicate afresh.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of appeals on an ex-parte basis without proper adjudication violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) were set aside, and the matters were remanded for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were provided, the assessee consistently failed to comply. Citing principles of natural justice and legal precedents, the Tribunal held that ex-parte orders without proper adjudication violate natural justice. The appeals were set aside and remanded.

The Tribunal noted that the substantive issues in these appeals are sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, in the interest of judicial discipline, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the matters itself but to remand them back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal deemed it inappropriate to adjudicate on matters pending before the High Court due to judicial discipline. Therefore, all matters were remanded back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with directions that the first appellate authority should await the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and then adjudicate the issues de novo, using the High Court's order as the main guideline.

The Tribunal held that due to the pendency of similar issues before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate these matters. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.