ITAT Lucknow Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order for sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,43,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete this amount.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided an issue different from the one appealed by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to his file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided an issue different from the one appealed by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to his file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-furnishing the information to be bona fide, citing Section 273B which allows for waiver of penalty if reasonable cause is proven. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without dealing with the merits. The impugned order was set aside as it violated the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing the assessee with a reasonable and effective opportunity to present its case, violating the principles of natural justice. The orders were set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for re-adjudication. It directed the CIT (Exemption) to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and allow the submission of all required documents before deciding the application for registration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing the assessee with a reasonable and effective opportunity to present its case, violating the principles of natural justice. The orders were set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition arbitrarily without controverting the assessee's explanation. The onus shifts to the Department to prove an explanation is unsatisfactory, which was not done here.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer were beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 201(3)(i) of the Act, as the amended provisions of FA-2014 were not applicable retrospectively to the financial year in question. Therefore, the orders were time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer were beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 201(3)(i) of the Act, as the amended provisions of FA-2014 were not applicable retrospectively to the financial year in question. Therefore, the orders were time-barred.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was perfunctory, merely reproducing the AO's findings without independent reasoning. The NFAC also failed to address the discrepancy in the assessee's claim of being a co-operative society versus its actual status.

The Tribunal noted that evidence relied upon by the CIT(A) was not provided to the Assessing Officer and the assessee claimed no opportunity was given for clarification. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the 'provision for loss in investment' is not a deductible expense under the Income Tax Act and its allowance in the original assessment was a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the AO was justified in rectifying the assessment under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and not deciding the matter on merits. The CIT(A) was obliged to pass a speaking order after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.