ITAT Lucknow Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and considering deposits, withdrawals, opening balance, and business receipts/expenses.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee and did not decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was void ab initio because it did not specify the charge or limb under which the penalty was proposed to be levied. Consequently, the penalty imposed was illegal and bad in law.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the subsequent grant of registration.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were insufficient to reopen the assessment. The mere fact of bank deposits, without more, does not indicate escapement of income.

The Tribunal found that all documents were furnished, but lacked the required signatures. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh decision, with a direction for the assessee to submit duly signed documents.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred by not examining the objects of the society and by rejecting the application ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred by not examining the objects of the society and by rejecting the application ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted all the required documents in response to the CIT's queries. Therefore, the rejection based on non-submission was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C is not leviable when TDS has been deducted and paid, even if with delay. The delay in deposit was attributed to reasonable cause, and only interest under Section 201(1A) could be charged.