ITAT Lucknow Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of Rs. 2,20,000 were fully explained by the substantial cash withdrawals made by the assessee in the immediately preceding month. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the Keyman Insurance Policy premium disallowance based on a CBDT circular. However, it dismissed the appeal regarding travelling expenses and fixed assets disallowances. Crucially, the Tribunal expunged the CIT(A)'s direction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 as it was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition under Section 68. The forfeited amount was a capital receipt and not taxable, especially since the investors' identities were not disputed and payments were made through banking channels.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions related to surplus and excess salary. It also confirmed the deletion of additions for payments to partner NGOs, relying on established judicial precedents.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present its case, violating principles of natural justice.

The tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not imposable as the assessee had ultimately appeared and provided explanations, leading to the completion of assessment under Section 143(3). The tribunal followed its previous decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order is void ab initio because the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer who ultimately passed the order, and no fresh notice was issued after the transfer of the case. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal precedents regarding jurisdictional issues.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without confronting the assessee with the material on record. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E) and directed the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and that the CIT passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and that the rejection was made ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT for fresh consideration.