ITAT Lucknow Judgments — July 2025

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 held that the CIT(A) did not have the power to set aside the assessment and refer it back to the AO for fresh assessment for AY 2018-19, as the relevant proviso to Section 251(1)(a) was inserted later. The assessee's claim for retrospective exemption under Section 10(23C) based on subsequent approval was also rejected.

The Tribunal found that the submissions made by the assessee regarding the stock discrepancy were not fully addressed in the assessment and appellate orders. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not valid as they solely relied on the cash deposit without examining the nature of the assessee's business or turnover. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed 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 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 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 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 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 found that the CIT(Exemption) did not properly consider the submitted documents and the legal position regarding the genuineness of activities versus application of income at the registration stage. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, after hearing the CIT(DR) and perusing the record, noted that the NFAC had observed that the AO had not allowed proper opportunity to the assessee, providing only one day to submit facts/evidences. Considering the specific facts, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide an opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary evidences in support of the impugned transactions. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material, even if ex-parte. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions or the exemption claims but set aside the NFAC's orders and restored the appeals to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) 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 the CIT(A) erred in granting retrospective benefit of Section 12AA registration for AY 2014-15, as the registration was granted from April 1, 2016, and the assessee had not challenged the order of the CIT(Exemptions). The addition of Rs. 2,11,54,100 was also upheld due to lack of contrary material.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer without first rejecting the books of account, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sargam Cinema. Therefore, the addition based on the DVO report was deleted.

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 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 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 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 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 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 held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made where no exempt income has been earned or accrued. The AO's disallowance based on the Explanation to Section 14A and Rule 8D was therefore erroneous.

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 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 held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the initial notice under Section 148 was issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked valid jurisdiction. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a de novo assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposits amounting to Rs.7,30,000/- was acceptable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had withdrawn amounts from his bank accounts, received cash rental income, and his son had also made cash withdrawals. Considering the assessee's old age, precarious medical condition, and financial standing, it was understandable that he kept a reasonable amount of cash for medical emergencies and unexpected expenses. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had failed to make a case for the addition, as it was made without due consideration to the assessee's financial standing, his son's financial standing, withdrawals, multiple income sources, and the assessee's age and medical condition. The Tribunal also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court cases of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, stating that in the present facts, the explanation was satisfactory, thus favouring the assessee. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.