ITAT Amritsar Judgments — May 2022

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BATHINDA vs M/S THE MUKTSAR CENTRAL CO-OP.BANK LTD, MUKTSAR

ITA 270/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: Disposed17 May 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted beyond its jurisdiction by setting aside the assessment for further verification, as the power to set aside was omitted from Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

SH. SARJU MITTAL,KATHUA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

ITA 504/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 May 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the cost of acquisition and improvement, finding it vital for a proper determination. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

VARINDERA OVERSEAS (P) LTD,LUDHIANA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 713/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: Disposed17 May 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to establish any violation of Section 40A(3) with documentary evidence. Ad-hoc additions without specific instances of cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000/- are against the law.

NEERAJ MITTAL,KATHUA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

ITA 503/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 May 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the cost of acquisition and improvement, finding it vital for a proper determination. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

SHRI RAJEEV BHATIA,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (3), JALANDHAR

ITA 595/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed4 May 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not ascertained the actual amount of sale consideration received by the assessee for the property sale. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(5), SAMBA vs M/S GANESH METAL INDUSTRIES, SAMBA

ITA 297/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed4 May 2022AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued based on an invalid revised return. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were null and void as the notice was time-barred.

SH. GURMAIL DASS SIDDHAR (DECEASED),HOSHIARPUR vs PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 231/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 May 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a sufficient opportunity to present their case before the Pr. CIT. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.

SH. PREM PAL GANDHI,NAWANSHAHR vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, JALANDHAR

ITA 455/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: Disposed4 May 2022AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record specific satisfaction regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was initiated, and the notice issued was also vague. Following higher judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted.

SH. PARMINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHAGWARA

ITA 706/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed4 May 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was passed mechanically without application of mind and without discussing material evidence. It was also held that principles of natural justice were violated as a show cause notice for a final opportunity was not issued.

SHRI JAGMOHAN SINGH S/O SHRI TARSEM SINGH,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PHAGWARA

ITA 2/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed4 May 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim of a typographical error in the turnover figure, finding the CIT(A)'s decision based on presumption and assumption to be unjustified. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.