ITAT Rajkot Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case before the Learned CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, constituting a violation of the principle of natural justice. It is a settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require the affected party to be granted a sufficient opportunity to be heard. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Without delving into the merits, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the assessing officer for de novo adjudication. The assessing officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest his stand forthwith and was at liberty to submit further evidence. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully before the Learned CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, which constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted a sufficient opportunity to contest their case. Consequently, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, due to their non-compliance. Without delving into the merits, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest their stand forthwith. The Assessing Officer was to afford an opportunity of being heard and the assessee was at liberty to let in further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under Section 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, which constituted a violation of the principle of natural justice. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance attitude, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to contest their stand forthwith. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the reasoning. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal by modifying the addition based on net profit estimation.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's quantum appeal was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the penalty appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that it would be in the interest of justice to await the outcome of the quantum appeal before deciding the penalty appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and to adjudicate the penalty appeal as per the outcome of the quantum appeal. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not delving into the merits of the case. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was an ex-parte and non-speaking order, and the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, which constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice. Citing the settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require adequate opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the assessing officer for de novo adjudication. The assessing officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest their stand forthwith and was at liberty to let in further evidence. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, due to their non-compliance attitude. The appeal of the revenue was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of suppressed turnover and had replaced the AO's addition with a new one for stock variation. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both issues.

The Tribunal accepted the prayer to admit additional evidence, citing principles of natural justice and the discretionary power under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. The matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal accepted the prayer to admit additional evidence, citing principles of natural justice and the discretionary power under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. The matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard during the revision proceedings, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the PCIT for de novo adjudication after providing a sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act, and the impugned order by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on available material, which constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require granting sufficient opportunity to the affected party. While imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, the Tribunal decided not to delve into the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication and to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also remitted, as the penalty has no leg to stand if the quantum appeal is set aside, but the AO can initiate penalty proceedings in de-novo assessment if any.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act, and the impugned order by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on available material, which constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require granting sufficient opportunity to the affected party. While imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, the Tribunal decided not to delve into the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication and to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also remitted, as the penalty has no leg to stand if the quantum appeal is set aside, but the AO can initiate penalty proceedings in de-novo assessment if any.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because it failed to conduct necessary inquiries into the genuineness of the penny stock transactions. The PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because it failed to conduct necessary inquiries into the genuineness of the penny stock transactions. The PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because it failed to conduct necessary inquiries into the genuineness of the penny stock transactions. The PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because it failed to conduct necessary inquiries into the genuineness of the penny stock transactions. The PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the approval under section 151 of the Act was not properly signed, and there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the prescribed authority at the time of issuing the notice under section 148. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the approval under section 151 of the Act was not properly signed, and there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the prescribed authority at the time of issuing the notice under section 148. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its previous decision in the assessee's brother's case, which involved the same shares and circumstances. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its prior ruling.