ITAT Lucknow Judgments — November 2024

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding it erroneous for dismissing the appeal without a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6). The matter was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowances for conveyance, vehicle maintenance, and telephone expenses, following a previous order on identical facts. For the interest payment, the issue was remanded to the AO to verify a certificate regarding the recipient's disclosure of income and tax payment.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make the addition solely on the ground of dealing in SBNs during demonetization. It also found that taxing the cash deposit, which represented sale proceeds already accepted as income, would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings. It held that the approvals granted by the superior authorities (Additional CIT and Principal CIT) were not mechanical. The Tribunal noted that these authorities recorded their satisfaction in their own handwriting and, as per Section 151 of the Act, were not required to provide elaborate reasons when satisfied with the Assessing Officer's recorded reasons. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Arun Duggal vs. DCIT and Experion Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that mechanical approval is not established merely by the absence of elaborate reasoning. Therefore, the satisfaction was considered properly derived. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had erred in taxing the entire sale consideration amounting to Rs. 4,27,455/- as income without deducting the indexed cost of acquisition and/or cost of improvement. This was inconsistent with the provisions of the Income Tax Act for computing capital gains. Accordingly, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for computing the income under the head capital gains in accordance with law. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to remove the pointed-out defects. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed due to the assessee's non-compliance.

The Tribunal noted that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to remove the pointed-out defects. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed due to the assessee's non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the seized cash. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to remove the pointed-out defects. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed due to the assessee's non-compliance.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(v) for deductions under Chapter VI-A was not permissible for Assessment Year 2019-20 as the relevant amendment was effective from Assessment Year 2021-22. Therefore, Section 80AC could not be invoked in this manner.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order on merits, even if the assessee is non-compliant. Dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits was erroneous.

The Tribunal found a lack of clarity in the factual matrix, with contradictory information regarding the basis of the assessment. Both parties agreed to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it did not fall under any exceptions for mandatory filing. On merits, the Tribunal followed a previous ITAT order and ruled in favor of the assessee regarding deductions under Section 35D and Section 32A.

The Tribunal found that the AO ought to have verified the correct facts regarding the cash deposit. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the actual deposit amount and provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the source.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. The ITAT also noted a violation of natural justice as a report used by the AO was not shared with the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in all appeals was below or equal to the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Both parties agreed that the appeals were not maintainable on this ground.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in all appeals was below or equal to the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Both parties agreed that the appeals were not maintainable on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee has the burden to prove claims, the Assessing Officer should also make independent inquiries. The Tribunal found it necessary to set aside the assessment for de novo assessment to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish evidence regarding the cost of improvement.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in all appeals was below or equal to the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Both parties agreed that the appeals were not maintainable on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs set by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. Both parties agreed on this point.

The Tribunal restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The AO was directed to complete the assessment in accordance with the law after providing this opportunity.

The Tribunal restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The AO was directed to complete the assessment in accordance with the law after providing this opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid due to lack of proper approval and that additions could not be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. Consequently, the impugned appellate orders were set aside and the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and CIT(E) and restored the issues to the respective authorities for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer and CIT(E) were directed to pass de novo orders after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid due to lack of proper approval and that additions could not be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. Consequently, the impugned appellate orders were set aside and the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid due to lack of proper approval and that additions could not be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. Consequently, the impugned appellate orders were set aside and the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and CIT(E) and restored the issues to the respective authorities for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer and CIT(E) were directed to pass de novo orders after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances made by the AO without pointing out specific instances of discrepancies are not sustainable. The lower authorities did not give due weight to the assessee's explanations, leading to unjustified disallowances.

The Tribunal admitted fresh evidence (bank statement reconciliation) and restored the case to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes, with liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC with a direction to pass a speaking order on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits, even if the assessee fails to comply with notices. Dismissing the appeal in limine for want of prosecution without considering the merits was erroneous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the lack of verifiable data, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute income by applying a net profit rate of 2% on gross sales, making no further additions.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) order was ex-parte and the assessee was not given adequate opportunity. In the interest of substantial justice, the appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the AO passed the assessment order 27 days before the scheduled hearing date, denying the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing due opportunity.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a hearing on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present her case. The addition made under section 36(1)(va) was questioned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness and admitted additional evidence. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case with the admitted evidence.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars as the information was disclosed in the audit report and the addition was accepted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petroproducts.

The Tribunal, considering the medical certificates and affidavit, found sufficient reasons for the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and was legally obligated to do so. The CIT(A) did not consider the merits of the grounds presented.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO had not gathered adequate material to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted an inquiry and taken a plausible view, and therefore the PCIT's action of invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263 for alleged lack of inquiry was without jurisdiction. The impugned order of the PCIT was set aside.