ITAT Lucknow Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they were rendered infructuous due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that an order under section 154 had been passed, revising the income to Rs. 54,000/- and granting substantial relief. Consequently, the grounds related to quantum addition were dismissed as infructuous, while grounds regarding the validity of the impugned order were kept open but considered academic.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the tax dispute was settled by the assessee under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal filed by the revenue was no longer sustainable.

The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal as the CIT(DR) had no objection. The appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes, granting liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal again if the DTVSVS-2024 application is rejected.

The assessee's representative stated that the assessee was contemplating settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, a retired government servant, adequately explained the source of the Rs.2,44,000/- deposit as past savings, which should have been accepted given the lack of contrary evidence from the AO. The Tribunal held that mere disbelief or suspicion is insufficient for an addition under Section 69A once a reasonable explanation is provided, and the onus shifts to the AO to disprove it. Consequently, the addition was deemed unwarranted and deleted.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing that the assessee must be given a proper opportunity. The assessee is cautioned to comply with the CIT(A)'s directions, failing which, the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass an ex-parte order based on available material.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide them on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the CIT(A)'s directions.

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

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's demise and the allegations of non-service of notice and violation of natural justice. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer, directing that the assessee/legal heir be given another opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present his case due to reasons like illness and misdirection of notices to a previous counsel. Considering the interests of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, while cautioning the assessee to comply fully.

The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and restored the issue of LTCG to the AO for de novo assessment, directing reference to DVO for fair market value. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with this order.

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

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, citing the settlement of the issue via other means and the tax already adjusted. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, thereby dismissing it as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the settlement under the scheme fails.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of Sundry Creditors for purchases were not justified if purchases were not disputed. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting these additions. However, the Tribunal noted that the estimation of Net Profit @ 8% by the CIT(A) was not justified due to the assessee's high turnover and history, and restored the profit rate declared by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of delay without addressing the merits. Considering the assessee deserves an opportunity to present its case, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing due to incorrect email addresses for notice service. Additional evidence was admitted.

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

The Tribunal set aside the issue of cash addition to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO is directed to verify if the amount was duly recorded in the assessee's books of account and if the source was explained. If proven, the addition would be deleted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the PCIT's order under Section 263 to be "scanty in details and perfunctory in nature," lacking discussion of the assessee's specific submissions and failing to consider the Assessing Officer's letter clarifying the examination of issues. The ITAT noted the PCIT's order was passed in haste on the last day of limitation. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the PCIT's order and directed a de novo order, if deemed fit, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and considering all relevant submissions and the AO's letter.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee. The application of Section 50C was also questioned. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard in both the assessment and appellate proceedings.

The tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to refuse the condonation of delay because the assessee failed to provide sufficient and contemporaneous evidence to support the claim of illness. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order levying the penalty. It was noted that the assessment order, which formed the basis of the penalty, had already been set aside by the Tribunal in a previous appeal, with a direction for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal after noting that the revenue had no objection and that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme.

The Tribunal observed that the NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the NFAC to grant the assessee a proper hearing and advising the assessee to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case and evidence, considering the defaults in procedural compliance were due to the assessee's counsel.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the director's medical reasons. Observing that the NFAC order was ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for adjudication on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation of residing in a rural area and lack of conversancy with tax procedures. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the initial appeal was dismissed ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to also look into the issue of the approval under section 151 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was arbitrary, baseless, and lacked reliable evidence, as it was based on presumption and conjecture rather than evidence. The CIT(A)'s insistence on books of account was also deemed unreasonable given the assessee's filing under Section 44AD.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the Rs. 1,44,500/- as his wife's 'Stridhan' satisfactory and acceptable. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,44,500/- that was sustained by the CIT(A).

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

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits. Dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the appeal was below the enhanced pecuniary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without a speaking order on merits, and also that the AO did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO for a denovo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and presented all required documentation. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and submitted all necessary documentation for settlement. The Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the Addl./JCIT(A) was set aside and remitted back to the Addl. CIT(A) to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and to pass a speaking order on all grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. Despite the assessee's non-compliance in the earlier proceedings, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a hearing on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.