ITAT Lucknow Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had provided the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1) is maintainable, contrary to the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity. The Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the grants received for setting up the institute were capital receipts and formed part of the corpus, not income. Therefore, they could not be added back to the assessee's income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were dismissed as they were barred by limitation. However, the assessee was given liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the defect causing the delay was rectified.

The Tribunal set aside several PCIT orders under Section 263, restoring the original assessments for some years (AY 2011-12, AY 2013-14). For other assessment years (AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, AY 2015-16), the issues were remanded to the CIT(A) or Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. For AY 2012-13 and AY 2014-15, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for those years, except for ITA No. 620/LKW/2019 which was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the medical condition supported by a certificate. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's contention that the additions should not be in his individual capacity needs verification.

The Tribunal held that since the appeals were time-barred and the assessee had not filed any application for condonation of delay, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The issue in dispute was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on suspicion, conjecture, and guesswork, as the books of account were accepted, no specific bogus transactions were found, and no justification was provided for quantification.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one final opportunity to represent their case, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings and did not file any adjournment applications. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal inferred the assessee's lack of interest and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to rebut the findings of the investigation report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry, allowing the assessee to lead evidence and examine the Commissioner.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a change of opinion and not on any new material, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal also found that the expenses in question pertained to the relevant assessment year, and the AO's disallowance was based on incorrect facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to explain information received from the bank, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal deemed it necessary to set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had failed to consider the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo speaking order after duly considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal followed previous decisions and set aside the impugned order, restoring the issue of deduction u/s 80P to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, with the consent of both parties, restored the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order, adjudicating all issues raised in the appeal after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established that the deposited amount was from prior withdrawals and that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide convincing reasons to reject this explanation. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee has a greater onus to prove the genuineness of the investment in a 'penny stock' script identified for manipulation, the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the key witness, Sh. Arun Kumar Khemka. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that similar appeals for earlier assessment years were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the current appeal back to the AO to decide the issue after considering all relevant documents and submissions.

The Tribunal observed that even if the Revenue's appeal were to succeed, the tax payable by the assessee would remain nil as the tax already paid under Section 115JB (book profit) exceeded the tax that would be due under normal provisions. Citing CBDT Circulars, the Tribunal concluded that the tax effect on the issues in appeal was below the prescribed limits.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the school building was constructed and that capital expenditure for charitable purposes is allowed under Section 12A. Considering the assessee's explanation that books were not submitted due to the remote location and e-filing difficulties, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (books of accounts) and remanded the case back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for a *de novo* assessment.

The Tribunal held that the application should not be rejected merely for mentioning a wrong section and that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned a 22-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing the assessee as a minority welfare society. Concluding that the assessee deserved a fair chance, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present evidence and explain the deposits, with a caution for the assessee to fully cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's advanced age and medical condition. Observing that the NFAC passed an ex-parte order and the AO did not provide adequate opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee to present their case with all necessary evidence, with a caution that non-compliance would allow the AO to proceed ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) for reassessment was barred by limitation as TOLA was not applicable to the assessment year. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was bad in law as it provided less than the mandatory seven days for compliance. Following the Bombay High Court's judgment, the reassessment notice, the order under Section 148A(d), and the subsequent order under Section 147 were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity during assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the addition of Rs. 38,86,000/- back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This is to allow the AO to consider additional evidence filed by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 263 when the matter was already under consideration by the CIT(A). Invoking section 263 in such a scenario would usurp the appellate jurisdiction of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It further held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as bank statements are not books of account. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's business nature as a commission agent was accepted in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits claimed as gifts from mother-in-law and father-in-law were acceptable considering the traditions and social status in Indian society. The amount was deemed not excessive or unreasonable.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was filed beyond the time limit but condoned the delay. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee claimed inadequate opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue of the disputed addition back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte, violating the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard on the specific issues.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte, and the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity during assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that a CBDT notification extended the benefit of Section 10(10AA) to non-government employees with retrospective effect. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order considering the notification.

The Tribunal held that the appeal order against the rectification was premature as the appeal against the main addition was still pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to consider the rectification along with the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, which violates the statutory duty to pass a speaking order. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the sole owner of the properties and the AO erred in taxing the entire amount. The matter was restored to the AO to determine the assessee's exact share and the genuineness of expenses.

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided no evidence for the cash deposits being business receipts or for filing VAT returns as claimed. It held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the deposits as turnover without material evidence. Consequently, the entire amount of Rs. 1,57,17,908/- should be treated as income from unexplained sources under Section 69A.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the CIT(Exemptions)'s rejection of the Section 80G application without affording the assessee a proper hearing violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for readjudication after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal, including the validity of the notice issued under Section 148. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to pass a fresh order after considering all grounds and providing an opportunity of being heard.