The ITAT Lucknow quashed the ex-parte appellate orders for AY 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2016-17, ruling that the CIT(A) failed in its statutory duty to pass a speaking order on the appeal merits. The case is remitted for a de novo assessment.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained credit since the same is made out of cash sales. Accordingly, addition merely on suspicion, doubt, conjecture and guess work cannot be sustained.
ITAT Lucknow set aside a PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling it was void due to a violation of natural justice. The PCIT used external adverse material (alleging shell company purchases) against the assessee without providing a chance for rebuttal or considering evidence already filed, making the order invalid.
The Tribunal directed the PCIT to reconsider a u/s 263 order, emphasizing that the PCIT is legally bound to examine and deal with the assessee’s explanations, such as increased sales due to an early festival season. The key takeaway is that merely issuing a notice is insufficient; the PCIT’s final order must be a speaking order that addresses all submissions.
ITAT Lucknow held that rectification under Section 154 cannot be invoked when a trust deed does not specify beneficiaries’ shares. Since the shares were indeterminate, taxation at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164 was rightly applied.
The ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 73 lakh on the unrealized surrender value of Keyman Insurance Policies, ruling that notional or hypothetical income cannot be taxed. Since the matured policy value was already offered to tax, taxing the value of unmatured policies would amount to double taxation.
The ITAT confirmed the deletion of a Rs.1.84 crore addition on demonetisation cash deposits, ruling they were genuine sales proceeds. The Tribunal held that since the audited books were accepted and the cash increase was explained by business changes, the addition based on mere suspicion was invalid and caused double taxation.
The ITAT ruled that receipts from the sale of power generated during the pre-commencement trial run of a plant are capital receipts, not taxable revenue income. This is because, under the matching principle, corresponding pre-operative expenses were capitalized to the fixed asset cost, justifying the deletion of the Rs. 42.56 crore tax addition.
The Lucknow ITAT ruled that a cash deposit cannot be treated as unexplained income if the assessees prior cash withdrawals from the bank are greater than the amount deposited. The burden shifts to the Revenue to prove the cash was used elsewhere, which they failed to do in this case.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) order under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers simply because they desire a deeper investigation, establishing that inadequate enquiry is not equivalent to no enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).
