ITAT Lucknow Judgments — December 2021

The Tribunal held that the date of handing over documents to the assessee's AO determines the 'search year' for the assessee. Since documents were handed over on 01.12.2017, the search year should be AY 2018-19, making AY 2016-17 fall within the preceding six years. The assessment framed under Section 143(3) without a Section 153C notice was deemed illegal and void.

The Tribunal held that since the outstanding GST amount was not debited to the profit & loss account, the disallowance under Section 43B was not warranted. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents where similar additions were quashed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide complete books of account and vouchers to the lower authorities. While acknowledging that disallowances without rejecting books are generally not permissible, the Tribunal found the assessee's lack of cooperation justified the lower authorities' actions to some extent.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which led to the penalty, were deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty itself did not survive and was consequently deleted.

The Tribunal held that Labour Cess, when not debited to the profit and loss account and collected as a collecting agency for the government, should not be added to the income. It also held that interest earned on client funds, when credited to the respective client accounts as per government orders, is not the income of the assessee.

The assessee submitted an application to withdraw the appeal as they had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction over the assessee as the assessee's business was in Maharashtra, not Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the notice issued by the AO was deemed null and void.

The Tribunal held that Labour Cess, when not debited to the profit and loss account and collected as a collecting agency for the government, should not be added to the income. It also held that interest earned on client funds, when credited to the respective client accounts as per government orders, is not the income of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a final settlement order was passed. The Revenue had no objection to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order was passed. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.