ITAT Amritsar Judgments — December 2022

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the deficiencies in the memorandum of appeal. The assessee was granted the right to revive the appeal upon removal of these deficiencies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the TDS claim as the rental income was offered for tax and Section 205 of the Act bars direct demand on the assessee when tax has been deducted at source. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee (affidavits from loan creditors) did not present substantial new evidence. However, the Tribunal also noted issues with the assessment proceedings, including confusion regarding the nature of scrutiny and the CIT(A)'s failure to clarify the conversion of scrutiny.

The Tribunal set aside the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification, directing that proper opportunity be given to the assessee and that submitted evidence be adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the matter regarding grant of registration for AY 2018-19 was already restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision. Since the appeal was filed against an order that was superseded by the restoration order, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found no logical basis for applying a 15% net profit rate when the assessee had incurred a loss. While upholding the AO's jurisdiction, the Tribunal reduced the net profit rate to a reasonable 8% on the sales amount.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. Both appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by changing the charging section and confirming the addition without granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard, which violates the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of input VAT was illogical and illegal. The assessee had paid the input VAT to the sellers as part of the purchase cost, and VAT is a prepaid tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the AO and CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the additions made. The assessee failed to provide contradictory facts or calculations to challenge the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the identity of the party was proved and the payment was made through banking channels. The assessee was not obligated to verify the creditworthiness or source of funds of the investor, especially given the ongoing civil litigation.

The Tribunal held that Section 154 is for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, and a claim made in a revised return, which was not considered during the original assessment, does not qualify for rectification under this section. The loss claimed in the revised return was not binding on the AO in the context of the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent for the validity of reassessment proceedings. Since the assessee's claim of non-service was supported by an affidavit and the revenue failed to provide contrary evidence, the assumption of jurisdiction was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the appeal involved a tax effect less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to rebut the recalculation made by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is non-est and therefore invalid. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and orders, including the revisional order under Section 263, are also considered invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot expand the scope of limited scrutiny without the approval of the Administrative Commissioner. Therefore, the assessment order to the extent of the expanded scope is void ab initio and bad in law.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, residing abroad, had reasons for non-appearance and had submitted explanations and documents regarding the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that claiming deduction under Section 80IC by way of a rectification application under Section 154 is not permissible. The original disallowance under Section 143(1) was sustained.

The Tribunal held that there is a clear distinction between employer's contribution and employee's contribution to PF/ESI. The employee's contribution, if not deposited by the due date as per Section 36(1)(va), is deemed income and its deduction is not available.

The Tribunal found that the issue was not elaborately discussed by the CIT(A) and that neither party could produce favorable judicial precedents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. Both appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received a certificate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny without the approval of the Pr. CIT. The assessment order was annulled as it was void ab initio and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances are not justified when the AO has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the expenses claimed and has not rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3). The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s observations to be casual and perverse.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of limitation raised by the assessee. However, it found that the issue of limitation needed further adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's grievance as genuine, citing principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, even after multiple opportunities. The explanation regarding the sale of agricultural land was not supported by any documentary proof.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as the capital gains were assessed in the hands of the power of attorney holder, not the actual owner of the land. The revenue failed to provide any material evidence to prove ownership by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not complied with the mandatory requirements for disposing of objections to reopening under Section 148, as per Supreme Court guidance. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the issue of commission addition to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing principles of natural justice. For other ad-hoc additions related to expenses, the Tribunal found the AO's and CIT(A)'s observations insufficient and allowed the grounds.

The Tribunal held that the existence of the donor companies was in question due to their names being struck off by the Registrar of Companies. While the assessee provided documentation like PAN, bank statements, and ITRs, and relied on judgments concerning the nature of corpus donations and the continuation of proceedings for struck-off companies, the Tribunal found these judgments factually distinguishable. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 68 requires the existence of the party as a necessary ingredient. The assessee failed to provide effective dates of striking off or any documents supporting the restoration of the donor companies before judicial authorities. Consequently, the question of the identity and existence of the corporate bodies to prove the transaction's veracity remained unanswered. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld the addition made by the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's grievance as genuine, citing principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, even after multiple opportunities. The explanation regarding the sale of agricultural land was not supported by any documentary proof.

The Tribunal restored the issue of commission addition to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing principles of natural justice. For other ad-hoc additions related to expenses, the Tribunal found the AO's and CIT(A)'s observations insufficient and allowed the grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of limitation raised by the assessee. However, it found that the issue of limitation needed further adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of limitation raised by the assessee. However, it found that the issue of limitation needed further adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of limitation raised by the assessee. However, it found that the issue of limitation needed further adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of limitation raised by the assessee. However, it found that the issue of limitation needed further adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of limitation raised by the assessee. However, it found that the issue of limitation needed further adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of limitation raised by the assessee. However, it found that the issue of limitation needed further adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of limitation raised by the assessee. However, it found that the issue of limitation needed further adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee had violated Section 13 of the Act by not charging interest on the outstanding amounts from the alleged related parties, thus siphoning funds for non-beneficial purposes. The addition of deemed interest was sustained.