ITAT Lucknow Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required details. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the issue is a question of fact and that the original records are with the Assessing Officer in Kanpur. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders and restored the disputes to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo order after verifying relevant facts.

The Tribunal noted that the facts regarding the provision of impounded books were crucial and not sufficiently available on record. Given the delay in proceedings and the location of original records, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether copies of impounded books were provided is a question of fact and not subject to the rule of precedence. Due to the lack of essential facts on record and the availability of original records with the Income Tax Authorities in Kanpur, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

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 held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the AO as it was based on assumptions and not cogent evidence. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s addition of 20% premium on sales, stating it was against facts and without sound reasoning.

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 found that the CIT(E) acted arbitrarily by cancelling the provisional registration without outlining how the assessee was not engaged in substantial charitable activities or providing a reasonable opportunity for rebuttal. The Tribunal deemed the orders unsustainable and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to explain its activities.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard or to rebut the findings. The cancellation of provisional registration was also deemed arbitrary and without proper assessment.

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, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the delay in filing the appeal, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and for producing necessary evidence.

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 held that orders passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) are not appealable before the ITAT, as they are not listed in Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate these appeals.

The Tribunal held that orders passed by the CIT(Exemption) under Section 119(2)(b) are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as they are not listed in Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate these appeals.

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 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 addition made by the AO was based on assumption and presumption rather than cogent evidence. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made under Section 68. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 20% premium on certain sales was also not substantiated by facts and was an assumption.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's rejection of the assessee's internal TNMM method was not justified as no cogent reasons were provided. Furthermore, the comparables selected by the TPO were found to be not functionally similar to the assessee. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments were struck down.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was bad in law as it attempted to substitute the AO's judgment with its own. The AO had made inquiries and the assessment order was a possible view, not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal restored grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings (including non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2)) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated these grounds. The other grounds related to the classification of the property were dismissed.

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 held that the AO had failed to consider the documents and evidence filed by the assessee, including confirmations and reconciliations, and had made additions in haste and without proper verification. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the core factual issue revolves around whether the assessees were provided with copies of impounded books. Due to the unavailability of certain facts and the location of original records, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal found that essential facts regarding the provision of impounded books were not on record. Given that original records were with authorities in Kanpur, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders and remanded the penalty issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, requiring verification of facts and affording reasonable opportunity to both parties.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether copies of impounded books were provided is a question of fact and that the necessary facts were not on record. The Tribunal emphasized the need to verify the original records.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether copies of impounded books were provided is a question of fact. Due to the absence of crucial facts on record and the availability of original records with the Income Tax Authorities in Kanpur, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether copies of impounded books were provided is a question of fact, and precedence does not apply. Since the necessary facts were not on record and original records were with the Assessing Officer in Kanpur, the appellate orders were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the crucial factual issue regarding the provision of impounded documents was not adequately addressed in the records before it. Due to the absence of these facts and the availability of original records with authorities in Kanpur, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders.

The Tribunal noted that written submissions sent after the hearing were not considered. It also observed that the issue of whether copies of impounded books were provided is a question of fact and that the available facts were not sufficient to decide. Consequently, the appellate orders were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision after verifying facts and providing opportunities to both sides.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether copies of impounded books of account were provided is a question of fact, and the rule of precedence does not apply. Due to the absence of critical facts on record and the availability of original records with authorities in Kanpur, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders. The disputes were restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo order after verifying facts and providing an opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal noted that the provision of copies of impounded books is a question of fact and cannot be decided based on precedence. Since the original records are with the Assessing Officer in Kanpur and not with the ITAT in Lucknow, and many facts need verification, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the disposal of these appeals was already delayed due to adjournments. While the issue of providing copies of impounded books is a factual one, the necessary facts were not available on record. The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders and restored the disputes to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo order.

The Tribunal held that the question of whether copies of impounded books were provided is a question of fact and that the original records are with the Assessing Officer in Kanpur. Therefore, the impugned appellate orders were set aside.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that crucial facts regarding the provision of impounded books, due procedure fulfillment, and whether reasonable cause for failure existed under Section 273B were not adequately established on record. Consequently, it set aside all impugned appellate orders and remanded the disputes concerning the levy of penalty back to the CIT(A) for a de novo order, directing verification of relevant facts and granting reasonable opportunities to both parties.

The Tribunal noted that the factual dispute could not be resolved based on the available records and that the original records were with the Assessing Officer in Kanpur. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of providing copies of impounded books is a question of fact, and the rule of precedence does not apply. As the necessary facts were not on record and the original records were with the Income Tax Authorities in Kanpur, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders.

The Tribunal noted that the crucial factual issue of whether copies of impounded books were provided was not sufficiently established on record. Given the delay and the availability of original records with authorities in Kanpur, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders.

The Tribunal found that the factual issue regarding the provision of impounded book copies needed verification from original records, which were located with the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) in Kanpur. Consequently, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo order after proper verification of facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both parties.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether copies of impounded books were provided is a question of fact, and precedents do not apply. Due to missing facts and the availability of original records with the Income Tax authorities in Kanpur, the appellate orders were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the core dispute involves a question of fact regarding the provision of impounded documents. Due to the absence of crucial facts on record and the availability of original records with the IT Authorities in Kanpur, the appellate orders were set aside.

The Tribunal determined that crucial facts regarding the provision of impounded book copies were disputed and not adequately on record. Given that original records are with the Assessing Officer in Kanpur, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders and remanded the penalty disputes back to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo order, directing verification of all relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunities to both parties.

The Tribunal found that the factual dispute regarding the provision of copies of impounded books of account requires verification of original records, which are with the Assessing Officer in Kanpur. Due to the absence of these crucial facts on record and the delay in proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders.

The Tribunal held that the question of whether copies of impounded books were provided is a factual matter, and precedence does not apply. Due to the need to verify facts from original records, the appellate orders were set aside.