ITAT Lucknow Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to opening stock, finding it was duly disclosed. For unexplained cash credit, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for examination of the cash book. The restriction of disallowance on expenses was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 50C by the Finance Act 2016 is curative and retrospective, meaning the collector's rate at the time of agreement should be used. The Tribunal also ruled that the Rs. 10,00,000 advance was a refundable liability, not part of the sale proceeds.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and without deciding the appeal on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in limine. This was based on the CBDT Circular which is binding on the Departmental Authorities, and the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was not specific regarding the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Therefore, the penalty levied on the basis of such a notice is void ab initio and bad in law.

The Tribunal noted that although there was initial non-compliance, the assessee eventually appeared and the assessment was completed. Following a precedent where penalty was deleted in similar circumstances due to subsequent compliance, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee initially failed to comply with notices, the assessment was eventually completed. Following a precedent, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the medical problems of the assessee's president. It held that the rejection of the 12A application on a technical ground without providing an opportunity to rectify the defect was improper.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions beyond the scope of the Section 263 notice and order, as this violated principles of natural justice. However, an addition under Section 14A for AY 2011-12 was upheld as it was part of the revisional scope.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide a fresh opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since a portion of the borrowed funds was invested in the firm, generating interest income, the proportionate interest expenditure on those borrowed funds is an allowable revenue expenditure against the interest income.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying additions on which the penalty was levied have been deleted, the penalty itself is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the penalty order and the CIT(A)'s confirmation are set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions on account of bagasse production and sugarcane loss without proper justification and by mechanically applying formulas. The disallowance under Section 14A was also found to be made without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions beyond the scope of the Section 263 notice and order, as this violated principles of natural justice. However, an addition under Section 14A for AY 2011-12 was upheld as it was part of the revisional scope.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, following established case laws.

The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not specific about the charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such a non-specific notice is void ab initio, making the consequent penalty illegal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemptions) was set aside to provide a fresh opportunity.