ITAT Lucknow Judgments — February 2024

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but granted them one final opportunity to present their case before the NFAC in the interest of substantial justice.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, acknowledging the assessee's claim of being unaware of the digital appeal process due to her rural background. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case. The assessee was cautioned that failure to avail this opportunity would lead to an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated filing of requisite documents before the AO and manual filing of the first appeal. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for re-examination of the issue after considering all documents and providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but accepted the explanation of lack of knowledge and difficulty in locating documents due to business closure. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's past non-compliance but also the undertaking given by the AR, decided to restore the issue to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to comply, with a caution against future non-compliance.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the First Appellate Authority, directing them to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. This was based on the assessee's submission of personal hardship (death of wife) causing the delay and an undertaking to cooperate.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided valid reasons for seeking adjournments before the NFAC, citing the medical condition of their counsel. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance percentages applied by the lower authorities lacked reasoning. It directed the disallowance to be restricted to 2.5% of the claimed expenses, considering it fair and reasonable.