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 Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 the PCIT wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as the PCIT failed to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT was expected to conduct some inquiry before remanding the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the amount deposited in the bank account, which was fraudulently opened in the assessee's name, could not be treated as the assessee's concealed income. The real tax evaders were identified as the individuals who opened the account.

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 set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

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 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 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 assessee's retraction of the statement made during the survey was upheld by previous orders of the Tribunal. Furthermore, the spot inquiry procedure was not followed correctly, leading to the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the detailed submissions and documents filed, and the Revenue's no-objection to restoration, the Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's retraction of the statement made during the survey was upheld by previous orders of the Tribunal. Furthermore, the spot inquiry procedure was not followed correctly, leading to the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the detailed submissions and documents filed, and the Revenue's no-objection to restoration, the Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

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 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment, finding that the notice under section 143(2) was not duly served on the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the initiation of proceedings was not bad in law, the AO failed to provide the assessee with sufficient opportunity to explain the cash deposits in light of his business turnover and audited accounts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the unspent grant amount is not income as per Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act. The Council functions as a fund management body for specific development purposes, and surplus funds are carried forward.

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 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 the addition of Rs. 9,24,71,130/- on account of cash sales made on 08.11.2016 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the assessee's books of account, and the sales were reflected in VAT returns accepted by VAT authorities. The assessee had sufficient stock, and no specific sale transaction was proved to be fake. The Tribunal relied on several coordinate bench decisions of ITAT Lucknow and other benches, as well as a Delhi High Court decision, which deleted similar additions made on suspicion and conjecture. The Tribunal found that the revenue's allegation was without convincing materials and based on mere suspicion. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the addition could not have been made under Section 68 of the Act, citing precedents that an appellate forum cannot sustain an addition under a section not considered by lower authorities, particularly when the lower authorities erred in applying Section 68. The issue regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE was deemed academic and not decided. The additional grounds were dismissed as withdrawn. The addition of Rs. 9,24,71,130/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption based on alleged violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3) was unjustified as no evidence of benefit to trustees was provided. Donations to another trust were partly allowed, with one donation restored for further inquiry.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order had blank columns for crucial details. It also observed that the AO treated the assessee as an AOP instead of a trust and denied exemptions under Section 11. The Tribunal found that the AO's additions were based on the cancellation of registration, which was a key issue.

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 restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P concerning interest earned on investments made as per statutory requirements to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The issue of verification of expenses was also restored for re-examination.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P concerning interest earned on investments made as per statutory requirements to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The issue of verification of expenses was also restored for re-examination.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee and restored the issue of exemption under Section 10(26AAB) to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order could not be sustained.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was to allow the AO to consider the assessee's written submissions and evidence, providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's written submissions and other evidence, and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, relying on judicial precedents regarding non-compliance, the Tribunal decided the appeal based on the material on record.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of grants and the creditworthiness of donors were not sufficiently proved by the assessee. The AO's disallowance of grants and ad-hoc disallowances were upheld to a certain extent.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 17,22,831/- sustained by the CIT(A) was erroneous. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that additions on unconfirmed creditors or debtors cannot be made if the books of account are audited and sales and purchases are not doubted, as it would amount to taxing the same amount again. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including stock details, sales register, party-wise sales summary, VAT returns, and a list of 867 debtors. It observed that the practice of cash sales and realization of debts in cash from sundry debtors was a regular occurrence in the assessee's business, supported by prior period transactions. The Tribunal found that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries into the debtors, and the failure of some debtors to respond to summons or the failure to serve summons on others could not be the sole basis for disallowing the entire amount without further investigation. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's accounts were audited, and the AO had not found any flaw with the audit report or rejected the accounts u/s 145(3). Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 17,22,831/-. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s reasoning for deleting the addition of Rs. 80,01,949/-. The Tribunal found that the business trends and documentation provided by the assessee sufficiently explained the cash deposits. Ground 5 of the assessee's appeal was not pressed and was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO was unjustified in classifying the deposits as unexplained under section 68 or 69 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was unjustified in classifying the deposits made by the assessee out of sales and realization of debt on credit as unexplained and adding them back under Section 68 or Section 69 of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that additions on unconfirmed creditors or debtors cannot be made if the books of account are audited and sales and purchases are not doubted, as amounts due from sundry debtors are already reflected under sales, and adding them back without disturbing book results would amount to taxing the same amount again. The Tribunal also agreed that the addition made on the basis of an average of cash realization was not a scientific basis, especially during demonetization. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer in full, allowing grounds 1 to 4 of the assessee's appeal. Ground 5 was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal dismissed both grounds raised by the Revenue. The ratio is that additions based on a sample study of unconfirmed debtors cannot be made without independent inquiries, especially when the assessee's accounts are audited, sales and purchases are not doubted, and some debtors have confirmed transactions.