ITAT Amritsar Judgments — October 2022

SHRI AMAR NATH JAIN MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,LUDHIANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTION ), JALANDHAR

ITA 441/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of basic exemption was a specific finding of fact by the AO in the assessment order, not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, it was not rectifiable under Section 154.

SHRI MOHINDER SINGH,MUKTSAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

ITA 40/ASR/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's counsel to withdraw the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

BANDI CHHOR EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST (GWALIOR),TARN- TARAN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPATION), CHANDIGARH

ITA 685/ASR/2019[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for registration under Section 12AA was justified. The CIT(E) is directed to grant registration after the assessee provides a CA's certificate confirming the correction of the accounting entries for transportation expenses.

SHRI ANKUSH NARULA,AMRITSAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

ITA 435/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating documents found during a search. Since the additions for bank deposits and property investments were not supported by such documents, they were considered outside the jurisdiction of Section 153A.

SHRI GAURAV NARULA,FEROZPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

ITA 619/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating documents found during a search. Since the additions for bank deposits and property investments were not supported by such documents, they were considered outside the jurisdiction of Section 153A.

SHRI DARAVJEET SINGH POONIA,SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

ITA 616/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities had not conducted sufficient inquiry to verify the genuineness of the sale agreement and the source of funds. The purchaser's non-appearance was noted, but the assessee's identity was not in question. The Tribunal found that the AO's conclusion was based on suspicion rather than proof.

SHRI SUNIL MEHTA,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), JALANDHAR

ITA 110/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation that no adjournment applications were filed was factually incorrect. The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Section 144B of the Act.

MESERS SAIN MIRAN BABA DARVESH,POONCH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 442/ASR/2018[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) had not properly appreciated the objects and genuineness of the trust's activities. The Tribunal found that the CIT's rejection was based on conjectures and surmises, and that the trust was created for charitable purposes.

SHRI GAURAV NARULA,AHMEDABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

ITA 434/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating documents found during a search. Since the additions for bank deposits and property investments were not supported by such documents, they were considered outside the jurisdiction of Section 153A.

MEASAGE CHOUDHRY CHARITABL TRUST,JAMMU vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 359/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh. This was done to ensure the principles of natural justice were followed by granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

SHRI RAHUL BHAT,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), JAMMU

ITA 522/ASR/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the underlying assessment order was set aside, the penalty order based on it is non-est. Therefore, the penalty levied is quashed.

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

ITA 250/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 for the second time.

SHRI MANISH CHOHAN,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4 (3), AMRITSAR

ITA 43/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

B.R CHARITABLE TRUST,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)- WARD, JAMMU

ITA 21/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, the Tribunal held that penalty should not be imposed for a technical or venial breach or where there is a bona fide belief.

V.R.A. COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ABOHAR vs THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

ITA 508/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) directed the AO to re-compute 'other income' and eligible income for deduction under Section 80IB. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not separately explain the embedded duty drawback value in export turnover and directed the AO to verify interest income and other income, giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence.

SHRIMATI. SUDESH NARULA,FEROZPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

ITA 620/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had elaborately explained the bank deposits with supporting ledger accounts during the appeal proceedings. The CIT(A) had not made adverse remarks on any of the deposits, yet upheld the addition. The Tribunal quashed the addition made by the AO.

SH.RAMESH KUMAR MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR

ITA 147/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the issue regarding the definition of scrap and the revenue's contention about the declaration were not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication.

M/S KASHMIR CEMENT,UDHAMPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), UDHAMPUR

ITA 584/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remitted the issue of TDS on freight payments back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It also deleted disallowances for other expenses, stating the CIT(A) failed to provide evidence to disprove the assessee's claims.

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS, BATHINDA

ITA 479/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to prove the transactions with M/s Pratap Enterprises with supporting evidence, and the business activities were beyond doubt. It also held that unexplained credits in the partner's capital account should be examined in the hands of the partner, not the firm.

SHRI PRABHDYAL SINGH,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (4), AMRITSAR

ITA 669/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide documentary evidence to disprove the agricultural income claim and that the addition was infirm and perverse. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim of agricultural income as justified.

SHRI PANKAJ ARORA,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), SRINAGAR

ITA 48/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified as the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) failed to provide material evidence or comparable instances to prove the salary was excessive or unreasonable. The Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of salary.

SHRI GURU NANAK PUBLIC SENIOR SEC PUBLIC SCHOOL,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), JALANDHAR

ITA 92/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was against the principle of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

MESERS VETERAN ENGINEERS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ZAKURA,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (3), SRINAGAR

ITA 342/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 62,200 on account of understated income. However, the issue of unexplained bank deposits was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination, with directions for the assessee to provide necessary documentation.

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

ITA 480/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to prove the transactions with M/s Pratap Enterprises with supporting evidence, and the business activities were beyond doubt. It also held that unexplained credits in the partner's capital account should be examined in the hands of the partner, not the firm.

SHRI DEVI DATTA,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (1), AMRITSAR

ITA 503/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee is a gross violation of natural justice. The additional evidence filed by the assessee was deemed to have material bearing on the issue.

M/S SURAJ MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SRINAGAR

ITA 525/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the ad hoc addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was vague and not supported by specific defects or evidence. The Tribunal relied on a High Court judgment stating that ad hoc disallowances without specific verification are not legally tenable.

SHRI MANJIT SINGH,S.B.S NAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAR

ITA 581/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's rebuttal to the remand report and not providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

SHRI PANKAJ ARORA,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD--3 (2), SRINAGAR

ITA 112/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified as the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) failed to provide material evidence or comparable instances to prove the salary was excessive or unreasonable. The Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of salary.

SMT. SANDEEP KAUR W/O SH SUKHPAL SINGH,MALOUT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (5), MUKTSAR

ITA 157/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly explained by the assessee through withdrawals from bank accounts, agricultural income, and gold loan proceeds. The Tribunal also found the implication of Section 115BBE to be not relevant in this case.

SH.BALJEET SINGH PROP. M/S. DREAM' CAR,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (1), JALANDHAR

ITA 150/ASR/2022[2017-2018]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO applied the presumptive tax rate under Section 44AD incorrectly as the assessee's turnover was not eligible. It also noted that the assessee was unable to explain demonetisation deposits and was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

SHRI SUKHPAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR

ITA 167/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot exist without a substantive assessment. Since the finality of the substantive assessment in the hands of the father was unknown, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after determining the facts.

SHRIMATI HARWINDER KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 96/ASR/2021[2008-09]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of expenses is beyond jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Product P. Ltd. Therefore, the penalty amount is liable to be quashed.

SHRI KANCHAN KUMAR MITRA,NEW DELHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4 (3), AMRITSAR

ITA 539/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not challenge the jurisdiction before the lower authorities but had submitted proof for Section 80C deduction. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on both grounds.

SHRIMATI SHAMSHADA TALIB,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFICER WARD -3(3), SRINAGAR

ITA 25/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the matter to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted another opportunity to submit evidence for their claims before the lower appellate authority.

SHRI SADHU SINGH,SHAHKOT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 593/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed11 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without obtaining the mandatory prior approval as required by Section 153D. Therefore, the assessment orders lacked legality and were liable to be quashed.

SHRI SADHU SINGH,SHAHKOT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 591/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed11 Oct 2022AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without obtaining the mandatory prior approval under Section 153D. Therefore, the orders lacked legality and were liable to be quashed.

SHRI SADHU SINGH,SHAHKOT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 592/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed11 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without obtaining the mandatory prior approval from the Joint Commissioner as required by Section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed illegal and liable to be quashed.

SHRI SADHU SINGH,SHAHKOT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 594/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Oct 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without obtaining the mandatory prior approval as required by Section 153D. Therefore, the assessment orders lacked legality and were liable to be quashed.

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

ITA 93/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and that the AO had applied his mind. The Tribunal found the PCIT's findings to be infirm and perverse to the facts on record.

SHRIMATI NANDINI SHARMA,AMRITSAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

ITA 148/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the excess stock was actually a shortage when the sister concern's stock was excluded. Therefore, the stock difference should be treated as business income and not as deemed income under Section 115BBE.

EXEXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE,SRI NAGAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC ( TDS ), SRINAGAR

ITA 137/ASR/2021[2020-21]Status: Disposed10 Oct 2022AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was due to bona fide reasons beyond the assessee's control, specifically the technical issues with the Income Tax portal. The ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice.

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

ITA 577/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not summoning the creditor when the assessee demonstrated inability to produce her due to strained relations and court cases. Following jurisdictional High Court precedent, the addition of Rs. 52 lacs was deleted.