ITAT Raipur Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that since a previous order under Section 263 of the Act for the same assessment year had been quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent assessment order based on it does not survive and is therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening did not match the additions made. The discrepancy between the income escaping assessment mentioned in the reasons and the actual additions made rendered the AO's satisfaction ambiguous and the notice under Section 148 void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening did not match the additions made. The discrepancy between the income escaping assessment mentioned in the reasons and the actual additions made rendered the AO's satisfaction ambiguous and the notice under Section 148 void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue authorities failed to provide any distinguishable evidence to justify a change in their stance from AY 2015-16, when they had accepted the assessee's claim. Following the principle of consistency, the assessee's claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening did not match the additions made. The discrepancy between the income escaping assessment mentioned in the reasons and the actual additions made rendered the AO's satisfaction ambiguous and the notice under Section 148 void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening did not match the additions made. The discrepancy between the income escaping assessment mentioned in the reasons and the actual additions made rendered the AO's satisfaction ambiguous and the notice under Section 148 void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening did not match the additions made. The discrepancy between the income escaping assessment mentioned in the reasons and the actual additions made rendered the AO's satisfaction ambiguous and the notice under Section 148 void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening did not match the additions made. The discrepancy between the income escaping assessment mentioned in the reasons and the actual additions made rendered the AO's satisfaction ambiguous and the notice under Section 148 void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening did not match the additions made. The discrepancy between the income escaping assessment mentioned in the reasons and the actual additions made rendered the AO's satisfaction ambiguous and the notice under Section 148 void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the nature and source of the cash deposits by providing month-wise cash flow statements, details of sales, and a list of debtors. The Tribunal found that the Revenue authorities had not conducted independent inquiries to verify the assessee's submissions and had summarily dismissed the evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the nature and source of the cash deposits by providing month-wise cash flow statements, details of sales, and a list of debtors. The Tribunal found that the Revenue authorities had not conducted independent inquiries to verify the assessee's submissions and had summarily dismissed the evidence provided.

The tribunal held that the appellate authority must adjudicate grounds on merits and cannot dismiss appeals without considering them. The CIT(A) has the power to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.

The tribunal held that the appellate authority must adjudicate grounds on merits and cannot dismiss appeals without considering them. The CIT(A) has the power to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were vitiated due to a blatant defect in terms of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of Shri Rakesh Khurana, which formed the basis of the addition, was never shared with the assessee during the reassessment proceedings, despite requests. Furthermore, the assessee's right to cross-examine Shri Rakesh Khurana was denied. The Tribunal relied on several judicial pronouncements, including those from the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in ACIT vs. Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt. Ltd., and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing that the non-supply of material and denial of an opportunity to defend oneself vitiates proceedings. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed as arbitrary, bad in law, and legally unsustainable. Since the reassessment was quashed, all subsequent proceedings were rendered non-est. Other grounds were deemed academic.

The Tribunal held that the ACIT lacked the inherent jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 as per CBDT instructions for non-corporate assessees with income below Rs. 15,00,000/-. Therefore, the notice was void-ab-initio, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148A(b) was void ab initio due to insufficient response time, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid. The order of the CIT(Appeals) in the second matter was set aside and remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148A(b) was void ab initio due to insufficient response time, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid. The order of the CIT(Appeals) in the second matter was set aside and remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a charitable institution and has consistently filed its returns as an AOP. Expenses incurred for earning income are deductible under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, irrespective of whether they strictly fall within the bye-laws, as long as they are genuine and incurred for the purpose of earning income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's circumstances and judicial precedents. However, due to the ex-parte order by the CIT(Appeals), the matter was remanded back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the interest income was disclosed, TDS was deducted and deposited, and a return was filed in response to Section 148 notice, there was no justification for imposing the fee under Section 234F. The order of the CIT(A)/NFAC confirming the addition was set aside.

The Tribunal held that reopening beyond four years requires the AO to record the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, which was not done. Furthermore, the information used for reopening was not shared with the assessee, violating natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed without a valid transfer order under Section 127 and without the assessing officer issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is without jurisdiction and bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order is quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(Appeals) itself found the basis of the AO's addition to be flawed, no part of the addition could be sustained. The Tribunal deleted the remaining addition.

The Tribunal held that primary agricultural credit cooperative societies are not considered cooperative banks under the Banking Regulation Act and are therefore entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2). Interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks is also eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that primary agricultural credit cooperative societies are not considered cooperative banks under the Banking Regulation Act and are therefore entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2). Interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks is also eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits, emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was bad in law because the approval for issuing it was granted by the Principal Commissioner, whereas for AY 2016-17, more than three years having elapsed, the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner was required as per Section 151(ii). Consequently, the assessment order was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc additions cannot be made without rejecting the assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. Since the AO accepted the books, the additions were unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause for non-compliance due to lack of notice receipt and no deliberate defiance of law. The penalties levied under Section 271(1)(b) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was bad in law because the approval for issuing it was granted by the Principal Commissioner, whereas for AY 2016-17, more than three years having elapsed, the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner was required as per Section 151(ii). Consequently, the assessment order was void ab initio.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause for non-compliance due to lack of notice receipt and no deliberate defiance of law. The penalties levied under Section 271(1)(b) were set aside.

The Tribunal found that there was no deliberate defiance of law or contumacious conduct by the assessee. The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons for non-compliance and set aside the penalty.

The tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by changing the charging section without following principles of natural justice and without demonstrating its applicability to the facts. This constituted a non-application of mind, rendering the order arbitrary and bad in law.

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

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one final opportunity to present evidence for condoning the delay before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC is to first adjudicate on the delay and then decide the merits if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal held that filing the return in the wrong form, even without 12A/12AA registration, should not automatically lead to the disallowance of all expenses. The matter was remanded to the lower appellate authority to decide afresh, considering the provisions of Section 139(9) and allowing the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defects.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory prerequisite for completing an assessment under Section 143(3). The assessment completed without such a notice suffers from a lack of jurisdiction and is therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had abandoned their case due to habitual non-compliance and willful disregard of legal processes. No further opportunity would be granted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and rejected the application without deciding on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that it would be unfair to dismiss an application solely for non-compliance with notices and failure to furnish documents, as a reasonable opportunity should be provided. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution and is obligated to adjudicate all grounds on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to comply and represent the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay. Citing various Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that delay caused by negligence or a casual approach cannot be condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the lack of deliberate conduct by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. The assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases and the actual movement of goods.

The Tribunal held that filing the return in the wrong form, even without 12A/12AA registration, should not automatically lead to the disallowance of all expenses. The matter was remanded to the lower appellate authority to decide afresh, considering the provisions of Section 139(9) and allowing the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defects.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by not complying with Rule 46A(3) and not calling for a remand report on the additional evidence. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside due to arbitrariness.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by accepting additional evidence without following Rule 46A(3) and without allowing the Assessing Officer to verify it. The factual nature of the hand loan transaction (whether received or given) was not conclusively determined.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were barred by limitation due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal emphasized that negligence and a casual approach by the assessee do not warrant condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were barred by limitation due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal emphasized that negligence and a casual approach by the assessee do not warrant condonation of delay.