ITAT Lucknow Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, following its own precedent in similar cases for earlier assessment years. The assessee was to be given a meaningful opportunity to represent its case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source and timing of the investment. The claimed investment was inconsistent with the firm's incorporation date and the operation of its bank accounts, leading to the conclusion that it was unexplained investment.

The Tribunal held that while the amendment to Section 68 regarding source of source was prospective, proving the creditworthiness of lenders was always necessary. Since crucial additional evidence was presented, the matters were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank was prevented from deducting tax due to the subsisting interim stay granted by the Madras High Court. Acting contrary to the court's order would have amounted to contempt.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity of being heard and that the authorities below did not provide specific findings on the explanations offered. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that penalty provisions are not meant to punish every technical breach. Since the assessee showed reasonable cause for non-compliance and the Revenue failed to prove willful default, the penalty was deleted. The Tribunal also noted procedural defects regarding the notice under section 143(2).

The Tribunal held that interest income arising from investments made in statutory reserve funds, as per the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, is attributable to the main activities of the society and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions regarding provisions, other expenses, and provident fund contributions required further examination. Given the history of non-compliance, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that while Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applies to searches conducted after June 1, 2007, Section 271AAA(3) prohibits the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income covered by Section 271AAA(1). Therefore, the penalty was wrongly imposed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh opportunity to present books of account, given the prior trustee disputes. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that while the amendment to Section 68 regarding source of source was prospective, proving the creditworthiness of lenders was always necessary. Since crucial additional evidence was presented, the matters were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that while Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applies to searches conducted after June 1, 2007, Section 271AAA(3) prohibits the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income covered by Section 271AAA(1). Therefore, the penalty was wrongly imposed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was on an ad hoc and estimated basis, without finding fault with the assessee's documentation. Furthermore, the penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague, vitiating the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that simply making an incorrect legal claim does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income if all relevant details are provided. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no justification for levying the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have first decided the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment before remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that rejecting the entire cash book based on a few entries out of the entire year's transactions is not legally tenable. The Tribunal further noted that the cash deposits pertained to business sales, which were not disputed by the AO, and taxing them again as unexplained credit would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal found that the Valuation Officer's report did not adequately consider the encumbrances on the property. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to obtain a fresh valuation report after considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO had wrongly rejected the assessee's books of account as the assessee had provided substantial documentation. The Tribunal also agreed that the AO's estimation of gross profit at 8% was arbitrary and not based on comparable data or past records.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the High Court judgment as the Explanation to Section 10(23C)(iiiab) was introduced before the assessment year. However, if the exemption is denied, depreciation should be allowed as a normal deduction.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence, emphasizing compliance in future proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence, emphasizing compliance in future proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a KVIC unit and its income might be exempt under Section 10(23B). The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to allow the assessee to produce all relevant documents to explain the cash deposits and expenses.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had been granted 12A registration and 80G approval, which the CIT(A) had failed to consider. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the documentary evidence regarding loan application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with necessary evidence, with a caution to comply with the AO's directions.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the First Appellate Authority, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary material to impeach the authenticity of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law and the subsequent assessment was void ab initio. This was because the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was based on incomplete facts, including the erroneous assumption that no return was filed and a lack of awareness of prior examination of the transaction by his predecessor.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded for a de novo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed opening cash balance with any independent or contemporaneous evidence. The self-prepared cash book was not considered credible, and the addition under Section 69A was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time limit and no sufficient cause was provided for the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of account might be justified, the AO was not justified in ignoring comparative cases and past trading results when estimating profit. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after the assessee produces complete books.

The Tribunal held that rectification proceedings under Section 154 are for mistakes apparent from the record and not for debatable issues. The CIT(A) had already implicitly decided the issue of reassessment validity, and a review of that decision was not permissible under Section 154.

The Tribunal directed the AO to assess income at a 5% net profit rate and restored the issue of income from property sale back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The deletion of additions related to demonetization cash deposits by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a speaking order for the reduced disallowance and that the assessee's computation was illegible. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had conducted necessary verification regarding the accounting method discrepancy. The CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte, and the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) erroneously assumed the assessee maintained accounts on the accrual basis. The assessee claimed to follow the cash system, which is contrary to the Companies Act requirement for mercantile accounting. Therefore, the issue of book profit calculation under Section 115JB needed fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer as mandated by law when the assessee disputed the valuation. Consequently, the additions made on this basis were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they constituted a review of the earlier assessment. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence due to the hasty manner in which the assessment order was passed.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was due to genuine reasons like the illness of a key officer and the shifting of the bank's head office, leading to a lack of awareness of the proceedings. Substantive justice should prevail over technical considerations.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was due to genuine reasons like the illness of a key officer and the shifting of the bank's head office, leading to a lack of awareness of the proceedings. Substantive justice should prevail over technical considerations.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that TDS under Section 194J is not binding on statutory authorities and they must independently examine the nature of receipts. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the subsequent assessment proceedings resolved the issues raised in the revision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's business receipts and were duly recorded in the books of account, which were audited and available to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Due to the submission of additional evidence and the Revenue's request for the Assessing Officer to examine it, the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 7,60,197 was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee owned agricultural land, but neither the AO nor the CIT(A) considered any agricultural income. Therefore, the issue of the Rs. 15,00,000 addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for estimation of agricultural income.

The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation report did not consider crucial factors presented by the assessee regarding the property's condition and location. Consequently, the appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions and evidence were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, directing that a reasonable opportunity be provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate a specific ground raised by the assessee regarding cash deposits pertaining to business income. Therefore, the issues were restored back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.