ITAT Amritsar Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 7,99,997/- was liable to be deleted as the AO did not find any specific lacuna or discrepancy. However, the disallowance of Rs. 49,573/- for non-deduction of TDS was upheld as the assessee could not clarify the reasons for non-deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and liable to be quashed because the wrong PAN and name were used, and the source of the cash deposits had already been accepted in the hands of the assessee's father for the same bank account in a separate assessment.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not conducted proper verification of the cash deposits and salary earnings, making additions based solely on AIR data. The assessment was made under Section 144 without adequate verification.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 54B deduction) was not pressed by the assessee and thus dismissed. Regarding Issue 2 (Section 69A addition), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had granted partial relief by reducing the addition. The Tribunal's specific finding on the remaining Rs. 95,17,875 is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it appears the assessee's challenge to the addition based on assumptions and presumptions was considered. Regarding Issue 3 (UCO Bank property income), the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition, and the assessee's grounds challenging this are listed but the Tribunal's decision on this specific point is not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt. Regarding Issue 4 (Section 68 addition), the Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000. The Tribunal reasoned that the provision of section 68 could not be invoked as the assessee maintained no personal books of accounts, and the amount was deposited with M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Smt. Shanta Devi Vs. CIT and CIT vs. SHIV SHAKTI TIMBERS. The addition of Rs. 10,00,000 was deleted. The Tribunal also noted that the addition based on the statement of Mr. Rohtash Kumar was recorded at the back of the assessee without an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice, as held in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. The appeal of the assessee was allowed in terms indicated.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (2018-19 and 2019-20), the assessees were entitled to deduction if the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (2018-19 and 2019-20), the assessees were entitled to deduction if the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (2018-19 and 2019-20), the assessees were entitled to deduction if the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was made without proper findings and that mere mention of missing vouchers is insufficient. The Tribunal relied on various judgments stating that expenses for business furtherance are allowable under Section 37.

The Tribunal noted that Section 36(1)(viia) was amended to extend deductions for provisions for bad and doubtful debts to cooperative banks. However, the definition of 'rural branches' for cooperative banks was not explicitly amended. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (2018-19 and 2019-20), the assessees were entitled to deduction if the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years in question (2018-19 and 2019-20), the assessees were entitled to deduction if the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment and the sanction for reassessment. It also rejected the assessees' claims that the deposits were from the sale of HUF agricultural land, stating the issue was unexplained cash deposits, not capital gains or HUF status.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was perverse. It reasoned that the AO had verified the assessee's books and documents, and a difference of opinion or inadequate inquiry is not sufficient grounds to set aside an assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and verified the purchases during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was deemed illegal as the same issue of bogus purchases could not be re-enquired multiple times, and the AO's order was not demonstrably erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries during the assessment and rectification proceedings. The PCIT's conclusion that no inquiries were made was factually incorrect, and the PCIT had erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.

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

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment and the sanction for reassessment. It also rejected the assessees' claims that the deposits were from the sale of HUF agricultural land, stating the issue was unexplained cash deposits, not capital gains or HUF status.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible under Section 200A for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment allowing such levy was prospective. Therefore, the impugned levy of fees was deleted.

The Tribunal accepted an additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153D and the limitation period for Section 153C assessments. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. However, it held that the Pr. Commissioner was justified in cancelling the penalty order, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible under Section 200A for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from June 1, 2015, and was not retrospective.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities did not cross-verify the VAT payment details with the Chartered Accountant or the assessee. It set aside the issue of VAT disallowance and ad hoc disallowance to the CIT(A) for further adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the penalty proceedings were time-barred and whether the required satisfaction for initiation was recorded needed verification. Therefore, the cases were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amount written off was a business loss, not a bad debt. The revenue authorities erred in changing the nature of the investment from a business loss to a bad and doubtful debt. The addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide any material evidence to disprove the assessee's explanation regarding cash withdrawals from his bank account. The addition was deemed arbitrary and unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the gross receipt should be determined by allowing reasonable deductions, and the revenue authorities could not go beyond the jurisdiction of the previous ITAT orders. The assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi).

Since the addition of Rs. 6,11,000/- was deleted by the ITAT, the basis for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) no longer exists. Therefore, the penalty is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making additions under Section 69 as the source of cash deposits was explained as belonging to the company. The Tribunal also found the reopening of assessment under Section 147 to be invalid due to lack of proper application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274/271(1)(c) was void ab initio because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the addition was based on a GP rate, which is not a specific nature of addition.

The Tribunal accepted an additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153D and the limitation period for Section 153C assessments. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) regarding the findings about non-farm sector and non-member activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to apply his independent mind to the information received from the Investigation Wing. Merely relying on the report without verification does not constitute 'reason to believe' for reopening the assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. However, it held that the Pr. Commissioner was justified in cancelling the penalty order, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide translated documents to clarify whether the amount was additional compensation or interest. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities, such as running Common Effluent Treatment Plants and promoting environmental protection, qualify as charitable purposes under Section 2(15). Therefore, the CIT(E) erred in denying registration.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition without confronting the assessee and that the CIT(A) acted arbitrarily by brushing aside the facts of agricultural activities and bank deposit/withdrawal trends. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to establish how the figure of Rs. 3,05,000/- was arrived at.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to explain the source of the Rs. 9,00,000/-. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unwarranted.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been set aside to the lower authorities for redetermination. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also set aside to the AO for fresh consideration after the quantum appeal is finalized.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities, such as running Common Effluent Treatment Plants and promoting environmental protection, qualify as charitable purposes under Section 2(15). Therefore, the CIT(E) erred in denying registration.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible under Section 200A for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from June 1, 2015, and was not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible under Section 200A for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from June 1, 2015, and was not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible under Section 200A for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from June 1, 2015, and was not retrospective.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the penalty proceedings were time-barred and whether the required satisfaction for initiation was recorded needed verification. Therefore, the cases were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted an additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153D and the limitation period for Section 153C assessments. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal accepted an additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153D and the limitation period for Section 153C assessments. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal accepted an additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153D and the limitation period for Section 153C assessments. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal accepted an additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153D and the limitation period for Section 153C assessments. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal accepted an additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153D and the limitation period for Section 153C assessments. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.