ITAT Amritsar Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 and 12 for AY 2010-11 based on its registration under Section 12A granted on 21.07.2011. The assessment proceedings were pending before the AO when the registration was granted, thus the benefit of the proviso to Section 12A applies.

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's observation that assessing authorities must yearly scrutinize activities for trade, commerce, or business and check for breaches of the quantitative limit in Section 2(15). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the department should have accepted the company's consistent practice of booking sales on a realization basis. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a kachha aharatia, had adequately explained the cash deposits as business transactions. The AO had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts, and the method of accounting had been accepted in past and subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits and additional evidence. It emphasized that principles of natural justice should not be overridden by procedural rules like Rule 46A.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 18,15,000/- on account of bogus purchases was unsustainable as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose statement was relied upon by the AO. This violation of natural justice renders the assessment order null and void.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to gold, cash, stock difference, and demonetization deposits was justified. The AO's additions were based on assumptions and human probability, lacking concrete evidence. The assessee's explanations and supporting documents were found acceptable.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities did not use a proper valuation method to ascertain the agricultural income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its claim with relevant evidence for the year under consideration. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all evidence and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on the ACSF was a normal banking business activity, as the bank earned interest on the fund while paying interest on it. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was incorrect.

The Tribunal considered the amount as personal savings and found no prohibition in using personal money for business or depositing it in a business account, as the source was not disputed. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject additional evidence filed by the assessee without following Rule 46A. Consequently, the addition for unexplained cash deposits was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to gold, cash, stock difference, and demonetization deposits was justified. The AO's additions were based on assumptions and human probability, lacking concrete evidence. The assessee's explanations and supporting documents were found acceptable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted all relevant documents, including the stock register and bank statements, to substantiate the purchases. The addition was based solely on information from DGIT (Inv) without cross-verification, and the assessee's transactions were made through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 18,15,000/- on account of bogus purchases was unsustainable as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose statement was relied upon by the AO. This violation of natural justice renders the assessment order null and void.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty is not maintainable. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case was based on erroneous facts, including an incorrect PAN number and the incorrect assertion that the assessee had not filed a return. Furthermore, the addition was based on a 'dumb document' from a third party, and the assessee had provided evidence, including an affidavit from the seller, to explain the transaction.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities did not consider the assessee's average net profit ratio over the years and the nature of the business. It held that a 12% net profit ratio was not justified and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AO had passed the order beyond his jurisdiction by calculating the cost of acquisition based on his own assumptions. The matter was set aside and remanded to the AO to refer the issue to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for considering the cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities took different views for different assessment years on the same issue. It was also noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for not submitting documents earlier due to the distance from the assessing authority.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order. The PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the AO acted beyond jurisdiction in making the addition under Section 143(1) without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The addition was deemed arbitrary and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view by treating advance fees as current liability, and this view was not unsustainable in law. The Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities took different views for different assessment years on the same issue. It was also noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for not submitting documents earlier due to the distance from the assessing authority.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities took different views for different assessment years on the same issue. It was also noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for not submitting documents earlier due to the distance from the assessing authority.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view by treating advance fees as current liability, and this view was not unsustainable in law. The Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that the diminution in the value of investments is an acceptable claim under the Income Tax Act, even if not reflected in the books of account during the year. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO had already examined the bank accounts prior to issuing the notice under Section 148. Therefore, the AO could not use Explanation 3 to Section 147 to re-examine these same accounts during the reassessment proceedings.