ITAT Lucknow Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 on 28/07/2022 was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee Shri Shyam Infra Pvt. Ltd. for assessment years 2015-16, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation. For assessment year 2021-22, the appeals are set aside and remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after proper factual verification.

The Tribunal found that the issue of assessment orders being barred by limitation was not decided by the CIT(A) and required factual verification. The Tribunal restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this preliminary issue. For other appeals concerning assessment year 2021-22, the Tribunal noted that the aspect of overall income disclosure sufficiency was also not decided by the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after proper factual verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, following various High Court and ITAT decisions, held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made in cooperative banks or nationalized banks, particularly when such investments are statutorily required or made as part of reserve funds as per bylaws and cooperative acts, is attributable to the main activities of the society and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal*, which clarified that for Assessment Year 2015-16, Section 148 notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, must be dropped as the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) was not applicable for extending the limitation period. Since the notice in this case was issued on 26.07.2022, beyond the six-year limitation period, it was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity for hearing before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the service of assessment and penalty orders was not complete due to the lack of real-time alerts, rendering the dismissal on grounds of delay illegal.

The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The Departmental Representative agreed that the issue should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 50% of the addition was ad hoc and lacked proper reasoning. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition of Rs. 10,70,100/-, effectively accepting the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for de novo orders, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that when the total income is below the taxable limit, there is no legal requirement to file a return of income. Therefore, no adverse view can be taken against the assessee for not filing the return. The action of the Assessing Officer and the confirmation by CIT(A) were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal observed that the property transaction involved a residential unit valued below Rs. 2 crore, occurring between 12th November 2020 and 30th June 2021. Citing a CBDT circular, the Tribunal ruled that such transactions qualified for an increased safe harbor limit of 20% under Section 56(2)(x), thus making the addition by the AO invalid. The Departmental Representative also conceded the applicability of the circular.

The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for de novo orders.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the case to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case and admit all evidence. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the AO, failing which an ex-parte order could be passed again.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 142(1) was issued beyond the prescribed date of 31.12.2017 as per CBDT instructions, rendering the assessment proceedings void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment was quashed on this legal ground.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the AO's directions.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed before the date fixed for hearing and that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the grounds to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that it was not possible to determine the validity of the disallowances without proper inquiry into whether individual cash payments exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. The impugned appellate order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the commission income, being derived from the activity of marketing sugarcane and covered by specific state acts, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. For the interest income, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, considering that such income arising from statutory reserve funds is attributable to the main business activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the commission income, derived from the activity of marketing sugarcane for its members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Regarding interest income from FDRs, the Tribunal noted that if these investments were made due to statutory requirements or for maintaining reserve funds, the interest income is attributable to the main business activity and eligible for Section 80P deduction. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on this point for A.Y. 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that, following Supreme Court precedent, appeals must be filed before the ITAT Bench that has jurisdiction over the AO who passed the assessment order. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Lucknow Bench was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not justified in imposing and sustaining the penalty, considering the extension of limitation periods granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form No. 10CCB along with the return of income is directory, not mandatory. Filing the audit report before the completion of assessment is considered substantial compliance.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO's order and the NFAC's dismissal were ex-parte. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from statutory reserve funds and other funds maintained as per the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is attributable to its main activities and eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The matter was restored to the AO for re-computation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the orders passed by both the lower authorities were ex-parte and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and there was a delay in filing the appeal. However, condoning the delay and considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case and evidence, while cautioning her to comply with future directions.

The Tribunal noted that the NFAC dismissed the appeal due to delay. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, and cautioned the assessee to cooperate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority's sustenance of 10% of the addition (Rs. 12,92,151) was based on an estimate to safeguard revenue without disproving the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the deletion of the entire addition.

The Tribunal observed that both parties agreed that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were restored back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were quashed due to lack of jurisdiction (notice under Section 142(1) issued beyond the prescribed date), the penalty initiated and imposed would not survive. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 without revising the prior approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and had applied due diligence, and therefore, the PCIT's order was unsustainable. The assessment orders passed by the AO were restored.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and applied due diligence before passing the assessment order, which was also approved by higher authorities. The PCIT's revision order was based on subsequent developments and without proper consideration of the entire record. Therefore, the revisionary orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned penalty order suffers from delay and deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, the addition that formed the root cause of the penalty levy had been deleted in the quantum proceedings, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to sundry creditors was justified as the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper verification. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal restricted the ad hoc disallowance to 10%, citing it as not being fully justified for 100% disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were void ab initio because no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was seized during the search operation. The bank account details were provided after the search and not seized as part of it, failing the prerequisite for Section 153C proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were quashed due to the issuance of the notice under Section 142(1) beyond the prescribed date, making the proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, the penalty initiated and imposed would not survive.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in quashing the assessment order without considering that the assessee had been granted registration under Section 12A, which mandated assessment under Sections 11, 12, and 13. The CIT(E)'s order was quashed as it ignored this crucial fact.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition for unsecured loans was justified as the assessee provided sufficient evidence and the AO failed to verify. For unsecured creditors, a portion of the addition was sustained as the assessee failed to establish identity and genuineness for certain creditors. For expenses, the 100% disallowance by the AO was deemed unjustified, and the ad-hoc disallowance by the CIT(A) was restricted to 10%.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. The ex-parte assessment order was also noted. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity for representation as only two notices were issued and not effectively served. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to consider the assessee's submissions and the records available with the AO, which is a violation of natural justice and Section 263 provisions. The PCIT should have either accepted or rejected the submissions with a speaking order.