ITAT Lucknow Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity to explain its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemptions) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because the reasons for reopening were not furnished to the assessee before the completion of the assessment, despite the assessee's request. This failure vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified as the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the purchase of land and site wages/development expenses. The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined the relevant documents and evidence, and therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of joint ownership and distribution of rental income to co-owners, who had declared it in their returns. Disallowing the deduction would lead to double taxation.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and penalty orders were passed ex-parte. Given the assessee's claim of explaining the deposit source and the pending Section 264 petition, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of deposits being from old debtors, loans, and advances was not examined by the lower authorities. The Tribunal also noted that the net profit rate of 8% might be excessive. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that since the brother of the assessee had declared the entire sale proceeds in his own account and filed his income tax return, taxing the same amount as capital gains in the hands of the assessee was not justified. The appeal was allowed on grounds related to the merits of the case.

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 appeal being dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, since the assessee settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, as the assessee settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the cash sales as the source of deposits but erred in confirming a part of the addition. The Tribunal deleted the confirmed addition as it was based on surmises.

The Tribunal held that the mere existence of non-educational objects in the trust deed is not sufficient to deny approval if no activities are carried out in pursuance of those objects. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT had not pointed out any specific non-educational activities or diversion of funds for non-educational purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Assessing Officer had failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to rebut the inspector's report and had arbitrarily ignored the assessee's past profit history. The CIT(A)'s estimation of turnover and profit rate was deemed correct.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal. Crucially, it held that the assessment proceedings were null and void due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who issued the notice under Section 143(2).

The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer reopens a case based on one reason but makes an addition on a different basis, the assessment order is void ab initio. Furthermore, reopening based on an erroneous assumption of facts is bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of customer details and tax filings. The CIT(A) had rightly restricted the addition to a portion of the abnormal increase in sales, considering it as profit.

The Tribunal held that the cash book maintenance was in accordance with the nature of the assessee's business and that unserved notices to debtors were not a valid reason for rejection given the circumstances. The Tribunal also found the estimation of profit by the authorities to be arbitrary.

The tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to examine the objects of the trust to determine if they were charitable in nature. The CIT also did not point out any specific non-charitable activities. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order on a deceased assessee without impleading the legal heir. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee came to know about the demand adjustment only in 2017 and filed the rectification application promptly thereafter. Referring to CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2012, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to condone the delay and decide the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that mentioning remuneration as per the provisions of Section 40(b) is permissible, citing a Hyderabad Bench judgment. The disallowance made by the assessing officer was set aside.

The tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because it was initiated based on a factual error by the Assessing Officer, who wrongly concluded that no return of income was filed. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had obtained certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for full and final settlement of tax arrears. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions, as the assessee had discharged his onus by filing necessary documentary evidence, which the Assessing Officer had not commented adversely upon. The Tribunal followed its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal found that both the Revenue and the assessee were aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order, with the assessee raising issues of non-adjudication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had obtained certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for full and final settlement of tax arrears. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which resulted in a full and final settlement of tax arrears. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had obtained certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for full and final settlement of tax arrears. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd. and other Tribunal orders. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by previous judgments of the Tribunal which allowed deduction for late deposit of employees' PF contribution if made before the return filing due date. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were prospective.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred by not providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard before rejecting the application, which violates the principles of natural justice. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed provided replies to the queries, and the CIT's rejection was based on a technical ground that did not exist. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that for disallowance under Section 14A, the Assessing Officer must record objective satisfaction, which was lacking. However, the disallowance out of salary and wages was upheld as reasonable, considering the lack of proper vouchers.

The Tribunal held that the entire deposits could not be added as income, as there were substantial withdrawals and payments made from the account. It directed the Assessing Officer to apply an 8% net profit rate on the total deposits.