ITAT Lucknow Judgments — November 2025

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.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitted it for hearing, and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order to the AO for fresh adjudication without adjudicating the assessee's appeal on merits. The assessee had filed written submissions on the merits of the additions, but the CIT(A) did not consider them. The CIT(A)'s reason for setting aside the order, citing a recent amendment to Section 251 of the Act and the pendency of appeals, was found to be an 'easy way out' and not a valid reason to avoid the statutory role prescribed under Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the order to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reason for the decision. The Tribunal emphasized that huge pendency of appeals is not a valid ground for the CIT(A) to abdicate their responsibility. Therefore, the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a de novo appellate order in accordance with the law, providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consciously discharging their statutory role. All grounds of appeal were treated as disposed of in accordance with these directions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was represented by none at the hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the assessee and the appellate order of the CIT(A) was also passed in a summary manner without giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A). The issue in dispute, concerning the addition of Rs.53,05,50,056/-, was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a de novo order on the disputed issues in accordance with the law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ratio of this decision is that orders passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee are unsustainable and liable to be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of being in an audited firm was factually correct, making the due date for filing returns 31.10.2022. The rejection of the option under Section 115BAC by the lower authorities was set aside.