ITAT Lucknow Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was deficient as it was not a speaking order and the assessee was not given reasonable time. Both parties agreed to set aside the order and restore the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance, granted one more opportunity to present the case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of substantial justice.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the genuine reasons provided by the assessee. Considering the ex-parte nature of the NFAC order, the case was restored to the NFAC for one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The assessee was cautioned to ensure full compliance in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case on merits. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal, considering the repeated adjournments sought by the assessee, decided to proceed ex-parte but ultimately restored the appeal to the NFAC. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case, cautioning against future non-compliance.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, granted one more opportunity to present the case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of substantial justice. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with future directions.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, granted one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the NFAC in the interest of substantial justice. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and the assessee's non-compliance, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's bona fide reasons. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case, while cautioning them about future compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons genuine. It also granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present her case in the interest of substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's complete non-compliance during the assessment and first appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of substantial justice, it granted the assessee one final opportunity, restoring the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a directive for the assessee to fully comply.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide it on merits with a speaking order. The CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and did not adjudicate the grounds raised.