ITAT Lucknow Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. The AO had previously accepted the assessee's position and there was no new material to justify the reopening. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's action was based on a change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction, thus quashing the reassessment notices and additions.

The Tribunal acknowledged the sufficient cause for delay due to medical reasons and found that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunities during assessment and penalty proceedings. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh denovo assessment and penalty orders after providing reasonable opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on limitation without proper verification was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had opted out of receiving notices via email, yet the CIT(A) issued notices through email and did not provide sufficient opportunity for compliance. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also failed to provide a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee and did not pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal restored the issue in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment order. This was based on the assessee's submission that they did not get a reasonable opportunity in the assessment and appellate proceedings, and the Revenue's representative did not object. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, directing it to provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. If the delay is condoned, the NFAC should decide the appeal on its merits, after giving the assessee a chance to present its case.

The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules does not mandate disallowance of FTC for delayed filing of Form 67, considering it a directory rather than a mandatory requirement. The Tribunal also noted that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the Act and rules. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for FTC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause (medical reasons) from filing appeals within the time limit and that the Assessing Officer had not provided a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for adjudication on merits, acknowledging that the assessee missed the hearing due to their accountant's preoccupation. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one last opportunity to present his case. Therefore, the file was restored to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one last opportunity to the assessee to present his case and produce necessary evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings for the same assessment year were set aside by a co-ordinate bench to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following this, the Tribunal also set aside the penalty order to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity.

The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Authority nor the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and failed to consider the grounds raised. The impugned orders were set aside to ensure the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to allow credit for TDS as per Form 26AS, as the omission was due to technical glitches and not the assessee's fault. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection regarding interest on refund was rejected due to lack of evidence of informing the AO about technical glitches.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the Senior Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no TDS liability arises for the supply of material. However, for short deductions on other services, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if the exclusion of service tax component was the reason for short deduction, in light of the relevant CBDT circular.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the assessee opted for VSVS and sought to withdraw the appeal, with no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee could apply for restoration if the issue is not settled under VSVS.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Department erred in not considering Form-10B while processing the assessee's income. The assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was dismissed as withdrawn on account of opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the legal heirs had not been substituted in place of the deceased assessee as required by the rules. Due to the absence of prosecution and the non-compliance with procedural requirements, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and no action was taken to substitute legal heirs. Despite efforts, the legal heirs did not come forward. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, granting liberty for restoration if pursued as per law.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC with a direction to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and then decide the appeal on merits. The NFAC was to condone the delay if explained properly and provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and legal heirs did not come forward to prosecute the appeals. No action was taken to substitute legal heirs. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had obtained certificates under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the D.R. had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the legal heir failed to file the revised Form-36 as required under Rule 26 of the IT(AT) Rules, 1963, for substitution after the appellant's death. However, the legal heir was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal upon fulfilling the necessary procedural requirements.

The Tribunal agreed with the Pr.CIT that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary inquiries and verifications regarding cash deposits and agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act to pass a speaking order on merits. Since this was not done, and the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The document is an administrative forwarding notice for the judgment. It does not contain substantive legal pronouncements or holdings on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits, which was not done. The CIT(A) also passed ex-parte orders without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to present their case and produce evidence regarding the impugned transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act to pass a speaking order on merits. Since the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity and the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits and failed to rebut the findings of the CIT(A). Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was sustained.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and rejected the application for condonation of delay, concluding that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extensive delay. The Tribunal found the assessee negligent and the cited case laws distinguishable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the issue was not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal, considering that the quantum appeal was still pending, decided that the penalty appeal should also await the decision on the quantum appeal. The Tribunal then restored the issue of penalty imposition and quantification to the Assessing Officer for a denovo order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal found the 20% rate for extra gross profit excessive and directed the Assessing Officer to charge it at 10%, granting partial relief to the assessee.