ITAT Lucknow Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer without awaiting the DVO's report, as mandated by law, was unsustainable. The delay in referring the matter to the DVO was due to the AO's negligence, and restoring the issue would extend the limitation period.

Both parties agreed that the issue in dispute should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh order. This fresh order should be passed along with or after the CIT(A) disposes of the appeal against the original order passed under section 201(1) & 201(1A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present arguments or evidence before the lower authorities to distinguish its case from the Supreme Court precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and that the assessee can establish bona fide reasons for non-filing. Since the Revenue accepted the return filed in response to a notice under section 148 and there was no unearthing of unexplained income, the Tribunal found a bona fide reason for the non-filing of the ITR by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement before passing an assessment order, especially when a return has been filed. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment order void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's written submissions and without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds of appeal. It was also noted that all grounds raised by the assessee must be considered and adjudicated by the appellate authority.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the medical reasons provided by the assessee and the judgment in Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and failed to consider the grounds raised. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard by the CIT(Appeals). The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal without deciding the grounds on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the strict application of Section 50C without proper inquiry is not justified, especially when there are peculiar circumstances affecting property value. The Assessing Officer failed to inquire into the assessee's contention about the property being disputed and unmarketable at the circle rate, and did not refer the matter to the DVO. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Assessing Officer passed the order without adequately confronting the assessee with information received from the bank. This violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Based on this finding, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A). The issues in dispute were restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a de novo speaking order on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative agreed with this course of action. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were left undecided, as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not valid because they were initiated after the expiry of four years and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The addition was deemed to be based on a 'change of opinion'.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the assessee's representative argued for the restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, which the Departmental Representative did not object to. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) had not given a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal, in agreement with both parties, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Both the assessment order and the impugned appellate order were set aside, and the issues were restored back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

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

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside.

The Tribunal observed that the search party prepared a consolidated inventory of cash, not separate ones for each individual, and the Revenue Authorities failed to conduct further inquiries into the family members' claims despite the assessee providing supporting documents. No adverse view was taken in the individual assessments of the family members. Finding the sustained addition of Rs.10,60,000/- to be premeditated and without merit, the Tribunal directed its deletion.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that CBDT Notification No. 31/2023, dated 24.05.2023, retrospectively increased the leave encashment exemption limit for non-government employees to Rs.25 lakhs. Citing numerous ITAT orders in the assessee's favor and the Revenue's non-objection, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the full claim under section 10(10AA).

The Tribunal held that both the FAA order and the original assessment order were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present her case. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the disputed issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a fresh de novo assessment order in accordance with the law, ensuring the assessee is provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the material on record was inadequate for a final view and that further factual verification by the AO was required. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment after conducting necessary inquiries.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after the revenue raised no objection. Both parties agreed that the matter regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo order, to be passed after the disposal of the assessee's pending appeal against the assessment order. The impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was accordingly set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues regarding additions back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring that the assessee is provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.