ITAT Raipur, in case of Manish Kumar Jain vs. ITO, ruled that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal based solely on a delay.
Both return and Form 10B were filed within extended due date (31.10.2018). Thus, substantive compliance was achieved. Filing of audit report after the return but before expiry of due date could not be construed as fatal non-compliance.
The ITAT Raipur quashed a reassessment order, ruling that the mandatory requirement for a signed approval from tax authorities was violated, rendering the entire proceeding void.
The ITAT in Raipur has set aside an ex parte order from the CIT(A) against Amriteshwaryai Mining. The tribunal ruled that issuing notices with less than 15 days’ time to respond violated principles of natural justice, restoring the appeal for a fresh adjudication on its merits.
The ITAT Raipur quashed an addition under Section 68, ruling that the AO overstepped jurisdiction by expanding a limited scrutiny case without approval. The addition was deemed invalid.
The ITAT in Raipur has condoned a 109-day delay in filing an appeal for Das Processors, noting that a technical glitch in Form 35 prevented email receipt. The tribunal also reinforced that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on their merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution.
The ITAT Raipur restored a penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after find-ing the dismissal was an ex parte order. The Tribunal ruled that a CIT(A) cannot summar-ily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution but must adjudicate on merits.
The ITAT Raipur quashed the reopening of an assessment under Section 147, ruling that search-based cases on third-party material must be initiated under Section 153C.
The ITAT Raipur condoned a 1,742-day delay for an assessee, restoring their appeal. The ruling emphasizes a justice-oriented approach and bars CIT(A) from dismissing cases solely for delay.
The ITAT Raipur ruled that the CIT(A) overstepped its jurisdiction by remanding a multi-crore TDS dispute involving SECL. The decision clarifies that a CIT(A) cannot remand cases that were not assessed under Section 144.
