ITAT Lucknow Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illness and technical issues preventing proper communication. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order due to lack of adequate opportunity to the assessee and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal, considering that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case and that the appeal was decided ex-parte, decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was done to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to present their case and necessary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence related to the assessee's business license. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case with the additional evidence.

The Tribunal restored the file to the First Appellate Authority with a direction to condone the delay of 63 days and decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case. The file was restored to the First Appellate Authority for another opportunity of hearing, with a direction to produce necessary evidence for TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to present their case and that the appellate order did not discuss the documents filed or the reasons for rejecting the explanation. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was ex-parte and the NFAC's order was passed without considering additional evidence due to the assessee's ill health. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present all evidence, while cautioning the assessee to ensure full compliance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering crucial additional evidence like medical records and remittance summaries. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice and to provide a reasonable opportunity, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee to present all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging non-compliance by the assessee before NFAC and partial compliance before AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The file was restored to the AO with directions to provide an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the NFAC for a fresh hearing on merits, cautioning the assessee to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal noted that applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B were pending before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). Citing a precedent where delay was condoned and exemption allowed in an earlier assessment year (2017-18), the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Addl./JCIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (Exemption Ward). The AO was directed to await the outcome of the condonation applications and then pass orders in accordance with law.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC and restored the file to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, with a caution to comply with the AO's directions, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material.

The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority erred by not adjudicating the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the assessment order due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN), as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019. The matter was restored to the First Appellate Authority for adjudication of this legal ground.

The Tribunal held that the interest income from investments made from statutory reserve funds and other required funds under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is attributable to the main business activity of the society and is therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The AO did not examine the breakup of investments in this regard.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was flawed due to incorrect appreciation of facts and law by the AO, including referring to a non-existent proviso and miscalculating the escaped income. This vitiated the entire reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted thorough inquiries and made a considered decision not to make the addition, supported by evidence of a genuine dispute and the supplier taxing the amount. The PCIT failed to identify any specific lack of inquiry or demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, ruling that the power under Section 263 was improperly exercised.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of condonation of delay was pending before the higher authorities. It also observed that in a preceding year (2017-18), the exemption was allowed after condonation of delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO to await the outcome of the condonation applications.

The Tribunal noted that the applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B for the years under consideration were pending before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO to await the outcome of these applications.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC and restored the file to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case and submit evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the AO, directing that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present their case with necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,00,000 related to agricultural income claimed from the father is upheld due to lack of evidence. The addition of Rs. 1,00,000 from a friend is deleted as explained. The addition of Rs. 30,000 (TDS) is upheld due to lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and liable to be quashed because the limited scrutiny was converted to complete scrutiny without obtaining the necessary approval as mandated by the CBDT, a fact conceded by the Department.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided confirmations and IT returns of donors, and the lower authorities failed to verify this evidence. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not address the assessee's submission that funds were from close family members with capacity to contribute and were used for constructing a nursing home.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to not having enough of its own stock to account for the cash sales during demonetization. While the assessee claimed to have sold 'display items' provided by Gitanjali Jewllery Retail Ltd., this claim could not be established or verified. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for a denovo assessment.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and, considering the need for substantial justice, restored the cases to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case with the admitted evidence. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the appellate order of the CIT(A) as the assessee's explanation was accepted. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee which was considered germane to the determination of the case. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the AO for proper determination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case with the admitted evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not barred by limitation. It found that the assessee's prolonged litigation and non-cooperation in special audit proceedings, despite clear directions from higher authorities, justified the application of Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act, which does not prescribe a time limit for assessments made in consequence of court or tribunal directions. The Tribunal also affirmed the disallowance of certain deductions.

The Tribunal held that Section 143(1)(a)(v), which allowed disallowance for late filing, was introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and was not applicable for the assessment year 2019-20. The disallowance was therefore made without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal, considering the voluminous additional evidence filed by the assessee and the submission that the original counsel was incapacitated, found that the evidence was crucial for proper determination. While rejecting some initial grounds, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, granting the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and deciding the grounds of appeal in a speaking manner.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's actions were based on estimates without sufficient supporting evidence and in some cases, approvals were granted mechanically. Many additions were deleted or restricted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not brought any single instance of incriminating material on record to justify the increase in profit percentage. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on estimations and assumptions rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal cited various case laws to support its decision that books of account cannot be rejected solely on the basis of a lower profit declared by the assessee or surmises. The AO's estimation of net profit @11% was considered unjustified, especially when the assessee had shown a higher profit margin in subsequent years. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not specified the defect in the record warranting rejection of books. Moreover, the Revenue had failed to show any defect in the respondent's records which would warrant rejection of books. The Tribunal found that the AO's action was arbitrary and might lead to an incomplete and erroneous computation of income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the quantum appeal had already been set aside. Since the assessment order was set aside, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for A.Y. 2015-16, confirming the deletion of additions and allowing exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), following the principle of consistency and previous assessments. For A.Y. 2018-19, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as the facts were in pari materia, also dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were flawed due to mechanical approvals lacking due application of mind and improper procedural adherence. Consequently, several assessment orders were annulled. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to accept the net profit rates disclosed by the assessee and delete certain additions.

The Tribunal noted that the approval for assessment orders under Section 153D of the Act was granted mechanically and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. The appeals were partly allowed/dismissed accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was just and fair, and considering the appellant is a government-aided college, the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) was rightly allowed. The AO's additions were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed without valid approval under Section 153D of the Act, which rendered them invalid and liable for annulment. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the net profit rate was determined without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and directed the Assessing Officer to accept the net profit disclosed by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of facts regarding the nature of the land and third-party interests. The penalty order was also set aside as its basis was linked to the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the facts regarding the nature of the land and the compulsory acquisition. The penalty order was also set aside and restored to the AO for fresh decision.