ITAT Raipur Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that due to the nature of the business (trading forest produce in remote areas) and the tribal recipients, cash payments are practically unavoidable. The Assessing Officer did not doubt the books of account or invoke Section 145(3). The addition was therefore considered arbitrary and lacking merit, especially since no independent inquiry was conducted by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not provided specific reasons for the maintainability of the penalty and had levied it in a routine manner. Given that the quantum appeal was being remanded, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remand the penalty appeal back for denovo adjudication.

The tribunal held that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, employee contributions to PF and ESIC must be deposited within the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes to be eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Late deposit, even before the return filing due date, makes the amount deemed income in the hands of the employer.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without substantial adjudication on merits violates principles of natural justice. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that ex-parte orders were passed due to non-compliance by the assessee, despite opportunities granted. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require a proper adjudication and set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases was made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee, who was a partner in the firm that allegedly made the purchases. The Tribunal found no justification for taxing these purchases solely in the hands of the assessee on a protective basis, especially when the firm itself was involved and the assessee became its proprietor only after dissolution. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require affording a final opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were set aside.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, following precedents, held that the principles of natural justice require a proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication with a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require an assessee to be heard. Given that ex-parte orders were passed without a substantial adjudication on merits, the matters should be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be heard. Since the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without substantial adjudication on merits, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal solely on limitation without examining the merits. Following a precedent, the tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a final opportunity to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay.

The tribunal held that additions on an estimation basis cannot be made without rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Act. Since the AO did not reject the books of account, the ad-hoc additions were deemed unjustified and arbitrary.

The Tribunal held that since the audit report was filed within the extended due date granted by the CBDT, there was no non-compliance. The CPC had erred in denying the exemption, and the findings of the First Appellate Authority were also set aside.

The CIT(Appeals) upheld the additions, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of funds and the donor's creditworthiness. The tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition regarding the purchase of the immovable property was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny. The limited scrutiny was focused on the sale of properties by the assessee, not the purchase. Therefore, the AO's action violated CBDT Circular No. 20/2015.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 151 by the competent authority was mechanical and based solely on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note without independent reasoning. This vitiates the approval and all subsequent proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation establishing the existence of liabilities. The AO and CIT(Appeals) failed to conduct further inquiry or provide findings on the applicability of Section 41(1), making the addition unsustainable and based on suspicion. The CIT(Appeals) order was also not in terms with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not provided evidence to refute the assessee's claim regarding the receipt date of the assessment order and the appeal filing date. The Tribunal held that the appeal was not time-barred.

The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC observed that the AO did not provide evidence linking the assessee to any colourable device or proving conscious involvement in share rigging. The AO relied on generalized investigation findings without establishing a direct nexus or malafide benefit. Consequently, the additions made under sections 68 and 69C were deleted.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to decide the case on merits with detailed reasoning, as per statutory provisions. The CIT(A) failed to provide a well-reasoned order on each point of determination.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee has been registered under Section 12A since 2003 and found no infirmities in its activities. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, relying on a Delhi High Court decision that held that an assessee cannot demand reasons for their case being selected for scrutiny. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for compliance with Rule 46A(3) regarding the admission of additional evidence.