ITAT Lucknow Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- on repair and maintenance expenses, finding it to be made without specific defects. The issue of Section 40A(3) disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the question of whether copies of impounded books of account were provided to the assessees is a crucial question of fact. It found that the facts necessary to decide this issue were not available on record. The Tribunal noted that the original records, including the impounded books, were with the Assessing Officer in Kanpur, and the CIT(A) also had jurisdiction in Kanpur, not Lucknow where the ITAT is seated. Given the lack of sufficient factual information and the need to verify several aspects, including whether requests were made, due procedure was followed, and if there was any reasonable cause for failure under Section 273B, the Tribunal set aside all the impugned appellate orders. The disputes regarding the levy of penalty were restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment after verifying the relevant facts and providing a reasonable opportunity to both sides. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the penalty levy itself, pending the factual verification.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even on assets whose cost has been deducted under Section 11, citing various High Court judgments. The reassessment proceedings were deemed academic as the exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Allahabad High Court's decision in M/s. Mass Awash Pvt Ltd, which stated that no fixed period of limitation applies to proceedings under Section 201/201(1A) in the absence of legislative prescription, should be followed. Therefore, the AO's order was not vitiated by limitation.

The Tribunal directed that a net profit rate of 8% should be adopted for estimating net profit, partly allowing the appeal. Regarding suppressed sales, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the issue, dismissing the grounds related to it.

The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's internal TNMM method and in applying external TNMM with comparables that were functionally different. The Tribunal also noted that the grounds related to delayed employee contributions were not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including declarations, bank statements, and gold loan certificates, to explain the source of gifts from his sister (Rs.1,50,000), brother (Rs.3,60,000), and friend (Rs.50,000). It held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting these explanations based on mere suspicion or human probability without presenting any contrary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire sustained addition of Rs.5,60,000.

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had examined the quantitative details of opening stock, purchase, sale, and closing stock. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the dispute to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after conducting the necessary inquiry.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) acted in contravention of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules by accepting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer a reasonable opportunity to comment on or examine such evidence. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the Section 68 addition was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions to properly consider the additional evidence after affording due opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals as revised by CBDT Circular No.09/2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications without providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to submit the requested details. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the assessee's request for an opportunity to present its case, restored the appeal to NFAC for hearing on merits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with NFAC's notices.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided grounds 5 and 6 of the appeal. The Tribunal restored these grounds back to the CIT(A) for adjudication, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that orders passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) are not appealable before the Tribunal as per Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal advised the assessee to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition under Section 68, relying on judicial precedents that sales cannot be suspected merely due to increased cash deposits during demonetization if books of account are accepted and no defects are found. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to add 20% as premium on sales, finding it to be based on conjecture without evidence.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.