ITAT Raipur Judgments — August 2026

The CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition under Section 50C, stating the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that Section 50C(2) allows the AO to refer the valuation to a DVO if the assessee claims the stamp duty value exceeds the fair market value.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajeev Bansal and the Bombay High Court's ruling in Gurpreet Singh, the Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible 'surviving time'.

The tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147 are invalid. Since the AO did not prove any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the source of Rs. 75 lakhs remained unexplained due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, to ensure substantive justice, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee to explain the source before the Department.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) relied on an overruled judgment. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) to decide afresh, considering a subsequent judgment and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that in cases of ex-parte orders by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's age and lack of evidence of deliberate delay by the revenue. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) to consider the delayed application and the submitted documents.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits, following Supreme Court precedents on substantial justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the legal grounds raised by the assessee regarding violation of natural justice were not adjudicated by the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for proper adjudication of these grounds.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue was previously decided by the same bench, where the matter was remanded. The CIT(Exemption) had rejected the application without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish proof of old registration.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that in completed assessment years, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, even if a statement was recorded and later retracted. The addition was based solely on a retracted statement without any supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) was not in accordance with law as it did not provide the assessee the mandatory minimum statutory period of seven clear days to respond. Consequently, the notice was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) was not in accordance with law as it did not provide the assessee the mandatory minimum statutory period of seven clear days to respond. Consequently, the notice was quashed.

The Tribunal held that if capital is introduced by partners into a firm, any addition on account of unexplained cash credit can only be made in the hands of the partners, not the partnership firm itself. The firm has discharged its onus by showing the capital introduction in its books and the partners confirming the contribution.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due verification regarding unsecured loans and taken a plausible view, thus the Pr. CIT could not assume revisionary jurisdiction merely due to a difference of opinion. Regarding business receipts, the Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT had not pointed out any defects in the reconciliation statement provided by the assessee, making the revisionary order a mere direction for a roving inquiry.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case by filing requisite details. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice. It restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the relief granted. The addition was restricted to Rs. 66,437/-, deleting the differential amount of Rs. 99,47,224/-.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee successfully establishes the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loan transactions through evidence, additions under Section 68 are arbitrary and liable to be deleted. The CIT(Appeals) order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that in completed assessment years, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, even if a statement was recorded and later retracted. The addition was based solely on a retracted statement without any supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) was not in accordance with law as it did not provide the assessee the mandatory minimum statutory period of seven clear days to respond. Consequently, the notice was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) was not in accordance with law as it did not provide the assessee the mandatory minimum statutory period of seven clear days to respond. Consequently, the notice was quashed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices under Section 148 and Section 142(1). It also noted that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed an ex-parte order sustaining the additions due to the assessee's non-prosecution of the appeal. The assessee's primary contention was that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on wrong facts and that no notice under Section 148 was served, preventing them from filing a proper response. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case by filing requisite details, with a strict warning against seeking adjournments. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 solely on the ground that the AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings. This decision followed the precedent set by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and other High Courts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It reasoned that prompt repayment of loans before assessment completion, as supported by previous tribunal decisions and High Court rulings, negates the possibility of accommodation entries and renders additions under Section 68 unwarranted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, following previous precedents, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The Tribunal found no evidence of round-tripping and noted that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries before rejecting the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional documents to the CIT(A) which were not considered. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that adding the entire bogus sales was not justified as the purchases were accepted and the books of account were not rejected. It directed that only the profit element embedded in the bogus sales should be added.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that due to the ex-parte orders and to ensure natural justice, the matters should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that due to the ex-parte orders and to ensure natural justice, the matters should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the additions. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the additions. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing Supreme Court judgments on substantial justice. Crucially, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the higher authorities required for assessments beyond three years, making the entire reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years was granted by the PCIT, not the Principal Chief Commissioner as required by Section 151(ii). Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing Supreme Court judgments on substantial justice. Crucially, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the higher authorities required for assessments beyond three years, making the entire reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it provided a shorter period (90 days) than prescribed by law (3 months from the end of the month of issue). This was considered a jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving time limit and that the approval for reassessment was not obtained from the appropriate authority as required by Section 151. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving time limit and that the approval for reassessment was not obtained from the appropriate authority as required by Section 151. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from the PCIT instead of the Joint Commissioner, as required by the old Section 151(2). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. No objection was raised by the Revenue representative.

The Tribunal held that there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, the levy was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the old registration certificate. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(Exemption) had not provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the application and set aside the CIT's order.