ITAT Lucknow Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide proper opportunity to the assessee and only gave one day to present facts and evidence. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not allow proper opportunity and provided only one day to the assessee to produce evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to provide a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present its case and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the First Appellate Authority with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the directions.

The Tribunal held that the addition made based on rough entries in seized diaries was baseless as no corroborative evidence was found and the dates in the diaries did not necessarily pertain to the assessment year. The addition based on the DVO report was deleted as the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account before referring the matter to the DVO, which is a prerequisite as per Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by remanding the matter back to the AO, as the CIT(A) did not have the power to set aside the assessment. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue of verifying expenditure and computing income at his own level. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C) was denied as there was no material to prove its applicability for AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to furnish supporting documents for cash deposits. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for one more opportunity to present evidence, cautioning the assessee for compliance.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- as unexplained loans was deleted as the assessee proved the creditworthiness of the lenders. However, the addition of Rs. 2,60,135/- on account of estimated gross profit on stock difference was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not properly consider the application in accordance with the law and had not provided a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present its case. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration.

The ITAT ruled that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were invalid, as they failed to establish a prima facie belief of income escapement by not examining the assessee's audited accounts or business nature. The AO's conclusion was based solely on the cash deposit amount, without cogent reasons. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings were held to be bad in law and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard and that the NFAC order dismissing the appeal ex-parte was not justified. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance but acknowledged the possibility that the bank account and its deposits might not belong to the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment to verify these claims.

The Tribunal held that while the notice under section 142(1) was not served correctly, the assessment itself was not rendered invalid. However, it was found that the matter was not properly considered by lower authorities due to non-compliance. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for proper verification of facts.

The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and NFAC were ex-parte. Considering the facts, the Tribunal felt the assessee deserved another opportunity to present his case. Therefore, the NFAC order was set aside, and the file was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the CIT(A) did not properly reject the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) prematurely dismissed the penalty appeal as it was dependent on the quantum addition appeal, which had not been decided. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in granting the benefit of registration u/s 12A/12AA to the assessee for AY 2014-15. The registration was effective from 01/04/2016 and the assessee's claim in the return was for exemption u/s 10(23C). The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal regarding the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the NFAC for a fresh hearing. The assessee is directed to fully explain the source of impugned cash credits.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. Both parties agreed that the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matters were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities, citing non-receipt of notices for hearing. Therefore, invoking principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) and the penalty under Section 271C, restoring both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. The disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses was deleted as it was made on an ad-hoc basis without specific discrepancy. The issue of education expenses for the director's son was restored to the AO for verification. Grounds related to assessment proceedings legality were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on conjecture and suspicion without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books were audited, purchases were not doubted, and VAT returns were accepted. The Tribunal also highlighted that the cash sales were part of the normal business and the addition amounted to double taxation. Therefore, the AO's addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on conjecture and assumptions, not evidence. The sales were part of the assessee's regular business and already offered for taxation. Moreover, disbelieving sales without rejecting the books of accounts was not permissible. The Tribunal also noted the issue of double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on conjecture and suspicion, not evidence. The Tribunal noted that purchases were verified, books of account were audited, and no infirmities were found by the VAT department. The Tribunal also emphasized that sales made during the demonetization period were not definitively proven to be bogus and that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT instructions, appeals with a tax effect below Rs.60,00,000/- should not be filed before the Tribunal. Both parties agreed that the appeals were not maintainable on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer who lacked valid jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were void ab initio and bad in law, deserving to be quashed. The addition made was consequently annulled.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's grievance that reasonable opportunities were not provided and the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the submissions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned CIT(A) order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the final accounts and audit report are part of the record, and a cursory glance would have been sufficient to identify the mistake. Both the CIT(A) and AO were incorrect in holding that the issue could not be addressed under Section 154. However, the issue of limitation raised by the AO was not adjudicated by the CIT(A).

The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the case to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. A Chartered Accountant also volunteered to provide pro bono services.

The Tribunal found that the opportunity provided to the assessee to furnish creditworthiness information was insufficient. The matter was restored to the AO for a denovo assessment to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the application without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present the required details. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the CIT(A) had rightly restricted the disallowance to 5% of the impugned bogus purchases and commission, finding no infirmity or illegality in the order.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite issuing notices. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the Assessing Officer's lack of doubt on production and sales indicated actual possession of goods, thus justifying the restriction of disallowance to only the profit element embedded in the purchases. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal heard the Departmental Representative (assessee was absent) and found no infirmity or illegality in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had observed that the Assessing Officer did not doubt production yield or sales and that the assessee was in possession of goods, thus rightly restricting the disallowance to the extent of profit embedded in alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh de novo order on merits after affording the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the CPC to verify the ESI/PF payment and pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted 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. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the fresh appellate order without providing the assessee adequate opportunity to make submissions and present materials in response to the remand report. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) were not properly considered and that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and directed a de novo order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to present their case before the learned CIT(A) and that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer were ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate orders.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted proper inquiries and verification as required, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as per explanation 2(a) to Section 263. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the learned PCIT.

The Tribunal noted that after the PCIT's order, the AO passed a fresh assessment order accepting the assessee's contentions and returned income. The assessee thus no longer wished to pursue the appeal, and the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since a Coordinate Bench had previously found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to medical conditions and the Covid-19 pandemic, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not be sustained. The penalty was accordingly deleted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence for the incurred expenses and unsecured loans. The assessee was directed to comply with the AO's requirements, failing which the AO would be justified in proceeding ex parte.