ITAT Lucknow Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating on merits, even in ex-parte proceedings, violates Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was prevented from prosecuting the appeal for sufficient cause.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment of expenses incurred in earlier years against income earned in subsequent years is permissible and should be regarded as application of income for charitable purposes. This view is supported by numerous judicial precedents, including a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to produce confirmation letters and ledger accounts for certain creditors. It decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to produce these documents before the CIT(A) for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, considering the assessee's medical condition (Muscular Dystrophy) supported by medical certificates. The delay was not intentional and the appeal should have been decided on merits.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity and without adjudicating on the merits, which is contrary to Section 250(6) and Section 251 of the IT Act. The tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing e-TDS statements due to system complications and frequent amendments by the department. For earlier years, the delay was considered minor and not causing prejudice to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the profit on the sale of vehicles, calculated as per the Companies Act, 2013, was not taxable under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the conditions for capital gains on depreciable assets were not met. The authorities below were not justified in making the addition.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing e-TDS statements due to system complications and frequent amendments by the department. For earlier years, the delay was considered minor and not causing prejudice to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing e-TDS statements due to system complications and frequent amendments by the department. For earlier years, the delay was considered minor and not causing prejudice to the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Both authorities failed to pass speaking orders explaining the basis for imposing the penalty. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing e-TDS statements due to system complications and frequent amendments by the department. For earlier years, the delay was considered minor and not causing prejudice to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing e-TDS statements due to system complications and frequent amendments by the department. For earlier years, the delay was considered minor and not causing prejudice to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal without touching merits violated Section 250(6) of the Act. The NFAC is mandated to provide clear reasons and findings, even in ex-parte proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the cancellation proceedings were violative of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not provided with a reasonable and effective opportunity to present its case. The initial notice was not accessible, and the subsequent reply was not considered.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the file back to the NFAC for de-novo adjudication. This was due to the assessee's failure to prosecute her first appeal, which was attributed to personal and health reasons that were accepted by the NFAC for condoning the delay.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to represent its case before the NFAC. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to pass a de novo assessment order after providing a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee to comply with the notices. Therefore, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities ignored documentary evidence like invoices and party confirmations, and made additions based on assumptions and probabilities. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged his onus by providing evidence of sales and cash payments.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was due to the CIT(A) not providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

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