ITAT Lucknow Judgments — September 2025

Before the ITAT, the assessee submitted an application to withdraw the appeal, stating that the ld. CIT (Exemption) had already condoned the delay in filing Form 10B under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition of the cash and jewellery was already considered and accepted in the hands of Shri Sachin Agarwal, whose assessment had attained finality, there was no justification for sustaining the protective additions in the hands of the respondents. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, having merged in February 2016, was not obliged to file a return for AY 2017-18. The mistake of not updating the PAN details in the bank account was an oversight by staff and not a ground to assess deposits in the hands of the non-existent entity. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the merger and evidence provided.

The Tribunal noted that criminal proceedings (FIR and Charge Sheet) confirmed that two individuals had fraudulently opened the bank account in the assessee's name and had accepted their crime. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that treating the amount deposited in this fraudulently opened account as the assessee's concealed income was not justified, as the assessee was not the true owner of the account. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions made in the hands of Shri Bhagwan Singh and Shri Sunil Garg were liable to be deleted as the substantive addition was already considered and settled in the hands of the actual owner, Shri Sachin Agarwal, by a prior ITAT order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with reasonable opportunities by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act. It was observed that the PCIT did not conduct independent inquiries to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had made inquiries, and the PCIT's decision to set aside the assessment without further investigation was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its onus by filing sufficient documentary evidence and that the AO failed to produce corroborative evidence or confront the assessee with material gathered behind their back. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and decided to restore the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) is directed to re-examine the case after the assessee provides due compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were delayed but condoned the delay. It found that the CIT had denied registration and approval primarily due to the assessee's inability to satisfy him with documentary evidence during the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the circumstances presented by the assessee, a senior citizen. However, the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance throughout the proceedings. To provide an opportunity, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration after the assessee furnishes all necessary documents to justify the claim under Section 54F.

The tribunal held that as per the instructions of the CBDT, appeals with a tax effect up to Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be filed. Both parties agreed that the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the non-compliance was due to communication issues with the former counsel. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present its case and evidence.

The assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and voluntarily decided to withdraw the appeal. The Assessing Officer had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable as it was based on admission during survey which was later retracted, and the investigation report was vague and not properly served. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions where similar additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being one of four legal heirs, cannot be taxed on the entire year's income attributable to his deceased father's proprietorship. However, the assessee is liable for tax on income earned after he took over the business and for explaining deposits made during that period.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's explanation by the lower authorities was not backed by sound reasoning or evidence. Merely disbelieving the explanation is not a sufficient ground for making an addition.

The Tribunal held that grant-in-aid received for specific purposes by a body not engaged in business activities is not income. The unutilized portion of the grant, carried forward for the same purpose, does not constitute taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in annulling the assessment order due to the failure to issue and serve the notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time, rendering the assessment proceedings null and void. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings as valid, rejecting the assessee's arguments of 'borrowed satisfaction' and lack of 'reason to believe'. However, due to the assessee's belated and partial compliance and the AO's failure to provide sufficient opportunity for explanation, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the AO for de novo proceedings. The assessee's Cross Objection was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so and dismissed the appeal summarily without providing sufficient opportunity, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without providing sufficient opportunity and without passing a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It held that the assessment order's omissions were curable under Section 292B and did not invalidate it. The addition of corpus donations was partly deleted, with a portion restored for confirmation. The Tribunal deleted additions related to capital expenditure and certain cash deposits, while restoring others for further examination. Accumulation under Section 11(2) was disallowed due to lack of specificity in purpose. Disallowances related to donations to related trusts were partly upheld and partly set aside pending further inquiry.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient time and opportunity by the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not absolute and that considerations of business expediency are relevant. The assessee had proven the identity of sellers, explained the source of cash payments, and demonstrated that cash payment was due to the sellers' insistence and for business expediency.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued beyond the prescribed date as per departmental instructions, making the assessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the commission receipts and interest income were attributable to the assessee's main activities of marketing sugarcane grown by its members. Consequently, the claims for deduction under Section 80P were eligible.

The Tribunal held that the commission receipts and interest income earned by the cooperative society from its core activities of marketing sugarcane are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii). The matter was restored to the AO for re-computing the admissible deduction considering the interest earned on investments made in accordance with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidences filed by the assessee, noting they were germane to the dispute and supported by an affidavit explaining prior non-submission. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider these additional evidences and re-adjudicate the issue of exemption under Section 10(26AAB) afresh, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation as it was not passed within the prescribed period under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the Assessing Officer had a reasonable belief of income escapement based on the investigation report. However, the Tribunal also found that the assessee's submissions regarding the source of investment being reflected in financial statements and books of accounts were not considered. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were primarily ad hoc and not sustainable in view of various judicial pronouncements. The issue regarding the delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI was also considered, with reference to the Finance Act, 2021 and Supreme Court judgments. However, the Tribunal ultimately decided to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.