ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not form an independent 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment, relying solely on borrowed satisfaction from an investigation report. Consequently, the entire reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had considered the evidence provided by the assessee and followed the CBDT SOP for verifying demonetisation period cash transactions. The assessee failed to demonstrate the genuineness of the cash deposits matching the amounts and period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the long duration of litigation and the assessee's suffering. It held that interest under Section 244A should be granted up to the date of the refund issuance, not just the date of the order. Additional grounds were dismissed as the CIT(A) had only directed verification and computation, not a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of PF/ESIC contributions cannot be excused by delayed salary payment, citing the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, issues regarding depreciation and the P&L vs. 26AS difference were remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order framed by the AO under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act for AY 2018-19 as void ab initio. The reasoning was that the assessment year was unabated, and no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The Tribunal relied on the settled position of law, including the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's judgment. Consequently, the ground of appeal regarding the validity of the assessment was allowed. As the assessment order for AY 2018-19 was quashed, the other issues raised by the assessee, including the downward adjustment and the consequential disallowance of depreciation for AY 2019-20, became redundant or infructuous. The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation in AY 2019-20, based on an invalid assessment of the earlier year, could not be sustained. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow depreciation on the tugs at the value claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it refrained from giving separate findings on other issues raised on technical grounds or merit as they became infructuous. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order framed by the AO under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act for AY 2018-19 as void ab initio. The reasoning was that the assessment year was unabated, and no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The Tribunal relied on the settled position of law, including the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's judgment. Consequently, the ground of appeal regarding the validity of the assessment was allowed. As the assessment order for AY 2018-19 was quashed, the other issues raised by the assessee, including the downward adjustment and the consequential disallowance of depreciation for AY 2019-20, became redundant or infructuous. The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation in AY 2019-20, based on an invalid assessment of the earlier year, could not be sustained. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow depreciation on the tugs at the value claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it refrained from giving separate findings on other issues raised on technical grounds or merit as they became infructuous. No issue was expressly left undecided.