ITAT Raipur Judgments — April 2026

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 dates. Therefore, the appeal was not time-barred, and the CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside.

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 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 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.

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.