ITAT Amritsar Judgments — December 2021

SHRIMATI POONAM MITTAL,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

ITA 449/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that a disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not a mistake apparent from the record, which is a prerequisite for rectification under Section 154. Therefore, the AO's action under Section 154 was not sustainable.

M/S JAI SHARDA RICE MILLS,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR

ITA 501/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that no disallowance was warranted to the extent of available interest-free funds (unsecured loans from family members). For the remaining balance, the disallowance was restricted to the interest rate paid on partner's capital (3%).

SH. JASWINDER SINGH,GURDASPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), PATHANKOT

ITA 585/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2008-09Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SHRIMATI MAMTA KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

ITA 468/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

SH RACHHPAL SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

ITA 140/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's services as a recovery agent constituted business receipts and were eligible for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD. The Tribunal also noted the department's past acceptance of similar income under Section 44AD.

JAI SHARDHA RICE MILL,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR

ITA 767/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

M/S JAI SHARDHA RICE MILLS,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR

ITA 502/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that no disallowance was warranted to the extent of available interest-free funds (unsecured loans from family members). For the remaining balance, the disallowance was restricted to the interest rate paid on partner's capital (3%).

SH. SADA RAM CHAWLA,TARN TARAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), TARNTARAN

ITA 479/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that a principal-agent relationship existed and the assessee was liable for TDS. However, to verify the exact amount of commission received by the assessee, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

SHRI AVINASH CHANDER BHALLA,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

ITA 527/ASR/2017[2004-05]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2004-05Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Since the entire sale proceeds were deposited in the CGAS account, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F, and no income had escaped assessment for the year under consideration.

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP BANK LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 280/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2021AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that no penalty could be sustained for the leave encashment premium as the addition was later vacated. Regarding the interest subvention, it was held that while the AO may not have accepted the assessee's accounting method, a mere rejection of a claim, without more, does not justify imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

SHRI TANVEER SINGH,AMRITAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (5), AMRITSAR

ITA 66/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10Withdrawn

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH KANG,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICR, NAKODAR

ITA 185/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to the invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO. The transfer of the case to a jurisdictional AO did not validate the initial lack of jurisdiction in reopening the assessment.

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

ITA 455/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, additions made on an estimated basis do not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

MESERS AXON LABORATORIES,HOSHIARPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 316/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the GP addition, disallowance of wages/salary, and building repair expenses were not sustainable. It also ruled that the CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 115BBE for the surrendered amounts, granting telescoping benefit.

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

ITA 435/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was defective as it did not specify the charges against the assessee. Furthermore, no statement was recorded from the assessee under Section 132(4) as contemplated by Section 271AAB.

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PHAGWARA

ITA 690/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal found that notices were sent to incorrect addresses, leading to non-delivery. The Assessing Officer continued issuing notices to the wrong address even after initial non-service. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for levying the penalty.

VIJAY PRINTING PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3, JALANDHAR

ITA 463/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

SHRI SUSHIL MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

ITA 434/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was defective as it did not specify the charges against the assessee. Furthermore, no statement was recorded from the assessee under Section 132(4) as contemplated by Section 271AAB.

M/S UNIVERSAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BATHINDA vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

ITA 607/ASR/2016[]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021

SHRI MATI SANJANA MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

ITA 433/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was defective as it did not specify the charges against the assessee. Furthermore, no statement was recorded from the assessee under Section 132(4) as contemplated by Section 271AAB.

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

ITA 591/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, additions made on an estimated basis do not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

SHRI AMRINDERJIT SINGH,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1), AMRITSAR

ITA 73/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration of appeals if the settlement is not resolved.

SHRI AMRINDERJIT SINGH,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX WARD-3(1), AMRITSAR

ITA 70/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration of appeals if the settlement is not resolved.

SHRI AMRINDERJIT SINGH,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), AMRITSAR

ITA 71/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration of appeals if the settlement is not resolved.

SHRI AMRINDERJIT SINGH,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (1), AMRITSAR

ITA 72/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration of appeals if the settlement is not resolved.

MESERS SEVEN SEAS RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

ITA 288/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

SHRI CHARAN DAS,MUKTSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -II (2), MUKTSAR

ITA 286/ASR/2018[2012-12]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2021AY 2012-12Withdrawn

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SHRI NIKHIL MAHAJAN,PATHANKOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), PATHANKOT

ITA 390/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2021AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and the Revenue did not controvert this fact. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

ITA 28/ASR/2021[2013-14.Q-4]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, finding sufficient cause due to employee negligence and system ignorance. It also held that orders processing returns and levying fees under Section 200A were time-barred for certain quarters and that Section 234E fees could not be levied for returns processed before the amendment effective June 1, 2015.

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

ITA 29/ASR/2021[2014-15.Q-4]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, finding sufficient cause due to employee negligence and system ignorance. It also held that orders processing returns and levying fees under Section 200A were time-barred for certain quarters and that Section 234E fees could not be levied for returns processed before the amendment effective June 1, 2015.

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 26/ASR/2021[2013-14,Q-2]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, finding sufficient cause due to employee negligence and system ignorance. It also held that orders processing returns and levying fees under Section 200A were time-barred for certain quarters and that Section 234E fees could not be levied for returns processed before the amendment effective June 1, 2015.

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

ITA 30/ASR/2021[2014-15,Q-4]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, finding sufficient cause due to employee negligence and system ignorance. It also held that orders processing returns and levying fees under Section 200A were time-barred for certain quarters and that Section 234E fees could not be levied for returns processed before the amendment effective June 1, 2015.

SHRI. INDERJIT SINGH,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), JALANDHAR

ITA 321/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2021AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to decide afresh after considering the date of acquisition of the property and other relevant details to be furnished by the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO and supply all necessary information.

M/S SWAMI BHAGWAN GIRI WELFERE SOCIETY,ABHOR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), CHANDIGARH

ITA 578/ASR/2018[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2021AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal found that approval under Section 80G requires registration under Section 12AA and charitable objects. Since the status of the 12AA application was unknown and the CIT's order lacked findings on other charitable objects, the case was restored.

SHRI GURU NANAK DEV KHALSA GIRLS COLLEGE,BATHINDA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

ITA 687/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2021AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was running an educational institution and was under the bonafide belief that it was not carrying out business activities, the provisions of Section 44AB were not attracted. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not leviable.

SAINT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX -CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 27/ASR/2021[2013-14,Q-4]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2021