ITAT Lucknow Judgments — April 2019

SHRI ADITYA RAJ MAHESWARI,KANPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-5(3), KANPUR

ITA 626/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(5), LUCKNOW

ITA 187/LKW/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

SHRI TEJ BAHADUR,SIDDHARTHNAGAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAIZABAD

ITA 500/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2019AY 2013-14Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

SHRI RADHEY SHYAM JAISWAL,SITAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

ITA 4/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2019AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not appear for the hearing and no adjournment was sought, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee can seek revival by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance.

SHRI ADITYA RAJ MAHESWARI,KANPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-5(3), KANPUR

ITA 40/LKW/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper service of notice and without deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals for a fresh hearing.

M/S KAN CONSTRUCTION & COLONIZERS PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR

ITA 547/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2019AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and without deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW

ITA 449/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowances without rejecting books of account are not justified. It also found that the donation was eligible for deduction under Section 35AC and the necessary evidence was filed during assessment proceedings.

M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW

ITA 450/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

RAVI KANWAL NURSING HOME PVT. LTD.,BAREILLY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

ITA 770/LKW/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the nursing home, being a private limited company, was engaged in business activities and not professional activities. Since its turnover was below the limit for business audit under Section 44AB(b), the penalty was not justified.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs M/S BHAGWAT SARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BIJNOR

ITA 475/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to alleged capitation fees, donations, and unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance of expenses for helping poor students and the deletion of the TDS disallowance.

MAHOBA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 5, KANPUR

ITA 32/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Apr 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. The assessee's counsel's non-appearance was cited as a reason for granting a fresh opportunity.

MAHOBA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MAHOBA vs ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR

ITA 788/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Apr 2019AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. The assessee's counsel's non-appearance was cited as a reason for granting a fresh opportunity.

MAHOBA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 5, KANPUR

ITA 33/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. The assessee's counsel's non-appearance was a key factor, and the assessee was unaware until the dismissal.

M/S. SMART SERVICES,KANPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

ITA 354/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

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.

SHRI ATUL KUMAR GOSWAMI,BANGALORE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-5, KANPUR

ITA 363/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Apr 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that proper notice of hearing was sent to the assessee. Since the assessee was not present and had not sought an adjournment, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.