ITAT Lucknow Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a statutory authority constituted for planned development and its activities are regulated by government orders and the UPUPD Act. It relied on various Supreme Court decisions, including ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which held that such authorities, even if involved in trade or business activities, are GPU charities if their primary objects are for public benefit and profits are not the main motive. The Tribunal found that the pricing and disposal of properties were governed by government guidelines and aimed at cross-subsidization for overall upliftment, not profit maximization. Therefore, the denial of exemption by the AO and CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal quashed the rectification orders passed by the successor CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, thereby reviving the original orders granting exemption. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's *Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority* judgment, held that the assessee qualifies as a general public utility charity, making the denial of Section 11 exemption and the additions unsustainable and deleted them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and did not amount to trade, commerce, or business, thus entitling it to exemption under Section 11. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the pricing and allotment mechanisms were governed by government orders and aimed at development, not profit maximization.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, being in line with statutory development objectives and guided by government orders, were charitable in nature. It noted that the sale of properties at prices determined by government guidelines, including cross-subsidization for lower-income groups, did not constitute profit-making or trade. The Tribunal also found no violation of Section 13(3) in the concessions given to employees.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's continuous non-compliance and the dismissal of previous appeals but, in the interest of substantial justice, restored the file to the AO to give one last opportunity to the assessee to explain why the penalty should not be imposed, directing de novo adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Development Authorities performing statutory functions for general public utility, even if they engage in trade or business activities, are considered charitable if there is no profit motive and pricing is controlled by the government. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the ITAT allowed the exemption under Section 11, directing the deletion of additions to surplus income, Infrastructure Development Funds, and Tourism Grants. The issue of depreciation under Section 11(6) was partly allowed and remanded to the AO for re-computation.

With the consent of the Authorized Representative, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes, given the assessee's election to proceed under the DTVSV Scheme. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to approach it again if the application under the scheme is not finally accepted by the Department.

The Tribunal granted permission for the assessee to withdraw the appeal, consigning it to the records. The appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes. The assessee was given the liberty to approach the Tribunal again if their application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, is not finally accepted by the Department.

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

The tribunal held that the assessee deserves one last opportunity to present her case. The file was restored to the AO with a direction to provide this opportunity, cautioning the assessee to comply fully in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of familiarity with electronic communication. The Tribunal restored the file to the NFAC with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for hearings, and an adjournment was rejected. However, considering the facts, especially the claims of non-receipt of notices and the possibility of a closed bank account being used for assessment, the Tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted by the Department.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's grounds for delay and the substantive issues raised regarding the assessment. It restored both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO), directing the AO to provide the assessee one final opportunity to present her case. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to fully comply with the AO's directions, failing which the AO could pass an ex-parte order. Both appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals as infructuous because the assessee had opted for the VSVS. It clarified that the assessee is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of appeals if the issues in dispute are not settled under the VSVS.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders. Considering the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer, giving the assessee one more opportunity to present her case and evidence.

The Bench granted permission for the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the Learned Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee's counsel submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (Bank Statements, Agreements, Affidavit & Receipts) under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, finding it essential for proper determination of the case. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and produce the admitted additional evidence during fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering that the authorities below passed ex-parte orders, restored the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to present their case and necessary evidence.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, consigning it to the records. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again if their application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, is not finally accepted by the Department.

The Tribunal held that both the lower authorities failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee, and the appellate order was not a speaking order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, restoring the assessment to the AO for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the VSVS. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee retains the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the issue in dispute is not settled under the VSVS.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous due to the assessee opting for the VSVS and receiving the requisite Form-1 certificates. It clarified that the assessee is at liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the issues are not settled under the VSVS.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and received the necessary certificates, the appeals have become infructuous and are liable to be dismissed. The assessee retains the liberty to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme and submitted relevant certificates. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had been issued certificates for the respective appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS and requested to withdraw the present appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT instructions, appeals with a tax effect up to Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be filed by the Revenue. Both parties agreed that the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal, while noting that the appeal was heard ex-parte and that the assessee had a delay in filing, condoned the delay due to medical reasons. The Tribunal restored the case to the AO for one more opportunity for the assessee to present his case and evidence.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal and accordingly dismissed it as withdrawn. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee the liberty to approach for restoration of the appeal if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme fails.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing proper opportunity. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, giving the assessee an effective opportunity to represent his case and explain the source of the cash deposit.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, consigning it to the records and dismissing it for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also granted the assessee liberty to approach it again should their application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, not be finally accepted by the Department.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a de novo order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to appear and the need for substantial justice, restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for one last opportunity to present the case and evidence. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case. The file was restored to the AO with directions to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present her case and necessary evidences.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, and dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes, granting liberty to re-approach if the VSVS scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection, and thus the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal also clarified that the Revenue can seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that in cases of unabated/completed assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A if no incriminating material is found during the search, following the Supreme Court's decisions in Abhisar Buildwell and U.K. Paints.