ITAT Amritsar Judgments — March 2023

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRJAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 264/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as per law due to the death of the assessee and the inability to bring legal heirs on record. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act clarifies that the liability to pay tax survives the death of the assessee and passes to the legal representative.

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER AOF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 261/ASR/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as per law due to the death of the assessee and the inability to bring legal heirs on record. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act clarifies that the liability to pay tax survives the death of the assessee and passes to the legal representative.

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 266/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as per law due to the death of the assessee and the inability to bring legal heirs on record. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act clarifies that the liability to pay tax survives the death of the assessee and passes to the legal representative.

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 262/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as per law due to the death of the assessee and the inability to bring legal heirs on record. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act clarifies that the liability to pay tax survives the death of the assessee and passes to the legal representative.

SHRIMATI SAKSHI SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

ITA 98/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the silver articles weighing 22 kgs had already been assessed in previous assessment years under the Wealth Tax Act. Therefore, no addition could be made for the current assessment year on account of the same investment.

SHRI JAVAID IQBAL TARA,SAPORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), BARAMULA

ITA 285/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that there is no provision for an 'agriculture rebate' in the Income Tax Act. Agricultural income is exempt and used for rate purposes. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in confirming the addition.

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 267/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as per law due to the death of the assessee and the inability to bring legal heirs on record. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act clarifies that the liability to pay tax survives the death of the assessee and passes to the legal representative.

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision was not justified as the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and deliberations before passing the assessment order. The PCIT's allegations were based on speculation without tangible material.

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 265/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as per law due to the death of the assessee and the inability to bring legal heirs on record. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act clarifies that the liability to pay tax survives the death of the assessee and passes to the legal representative.

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

ITA 263/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as per law due to the death of the assessee and the inability to bring legal heirs on record. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act clarifies that the liability to pay tax survives the death of the assessee and passes to the legal representative.

SHRI. AJIT SINGH S/O SHRI. RAM CHAND,NAWANSHAHR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, NAWANSHAHR

ITA 109/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of non-service of notices and the genuine hardship faced. Considering the additional evidence vital for adjudication, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

ITA 171/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law because it invoked provisions that were not applicable to the assessment year in question. Consequently, the order of the PCIT was quashed.

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 263 cannot be initiated solely based on an audit objection if the AO has already provided a satisfactory response. Furthermore, the Tribunal distinguished between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry', stating that Section 263 is applicable only in cases of 'lack of inquiry'.

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries. The Tribunal distinguished between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry', stating that Section 263 is applicable only in cases of 'lack of inquiry'.

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD, JAMMU

ITA 672/ASR/2014[201-11]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023Dismissed

The Tribunal held that unsigned MOUs lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for additions under Section 69B. The AO's assumption of understated investment without corroborative evidence was not approved.

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD, JAMMU

ITA 671/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that unsigned MOUs lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for additions under Section 69B. The AO's assumption of understated investment without corroborative evidence was not approved.

SUB DIVISION SAANJH COMMUNITY POL ICING SOCIETY,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) WARD, JALANDHAR

ITA 13/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, stating that exemption can be denied if activities amount to 'trade, commerce or business' and the quantitative limit in the proviso to section 2(15) is breached. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo adjudication.

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries. The Tribunal distinguished between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry', stating that Section 263 is applicable only in cases of 'lack of inquiry'.

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD, JAMMU

ITA 673/ASR/2014[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that unsigned MOUs lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for additions under Section 69B. The AO's assumption of understated investment without corroborative evidence was not approved.

M/S CHEMESTER FOOD INDUSTRY,NEW DELHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-III, AMRITSAR

ITA 583/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and a new legal ground regarding the validity of the assessment order. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

COMMUNITY POLICING SUVIDHA CENTRE ( WEST ), NOW KNOWN AS SUB DIVISION SAANJH (COMMUNITY POLICING) SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

ITA 14/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, stating that exemption can be denied if activities amount to 'trade, commerce or business' and the quantitative limit in the proviso to section 2(15) is breached. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo adjudication.

SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

ITA 168/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal accepted additional evidence and found that the contractual receipts of Rs. 70 lakhs were not related to the assessee but to the partnership firm. The matter was remitted back to the AO for further verification of documents and to allow the assessee a hearing.

DIAMOND HERITAGE,JALANDHAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 116/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made due inquiries regarding cash deposits and sales, and the Principal CIT's order was based on presumption rather than specific defects. The conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.

KHYBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

ITA 31/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The ITAT noted that grounds related to PF/ESI disallowance were not pressed, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Regarding the deferred tax provision, the ITAT found it was added back twice and remitted the issue to the AO for proper computation to avoid double taxation.

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 183/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on a false premise that the assessee had not filed a return. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the factual grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the entire issue was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication.

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 182/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on a false premise that the assessee had not filed a return. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the factual grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the entire issue was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication.

SHRI SUKHJINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not justified as the AO had made inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal also noted that the Vivad se Vishwas scheme proceedings had concluded, making further revision impermissible.

NAVJEEVAN CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 215/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the communications issued by the Assessing Officer were not valid 'directions' under Section 142(2A) because they lacked the required prior approval from the Principal Commissioner and did not provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unjustified.

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 184/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on a false premise that the assessee had not filed a return. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the factual grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the entire issue was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication.

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1), JALANDHAR

ITA 8/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions made after the due dates under the respective Acts, even if paid before the return filing due date, is in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services P. Ltd. case. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is sustained.

BALRAJ WINE,SHRI MUKTSAR SAHIB vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOE TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

ITA 10/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution, as per established legal principles. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SHRI AIJAZ RAHI S/O SHRI MOHD ISMAIL WANI,BANGLORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (1), SRINAGAR

ITA 237/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that ex-parte orders passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were against the principles of natural justice. The assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case on merits.

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

ITA 9/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions made after the due dates under the respective Acts, even if paid before the return filing due date, is in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services P. Ltd. case. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is sustained.

SHRI ABDUL HAMID MALIK,ANANTNAG vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

ITA 236/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that ex-parte orders passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were against the principles of natural justice. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case on merits before the Assessing Officer.

SHRIMATI MANJEET KAUR,BATHINDA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, BATHINDA

ITA 115/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's contentions.

DEEN DAYAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 218/ASR/2022[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessees were denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case due to technical issues and procedural lapses. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the applications de novo and grant registration as per law after providing a proper hearing.

SPIRITUAL WELFARE SOCIETY,GURDAS PUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 217/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessees were denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case due to technical issues and procedural lapses. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the applications de novo and grant registration as per law after providing a proper hearing.

SPIRTUAL WELFARE SOCIETY,GURDAS PUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 216/ASR/2022[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessees were denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case due to technical issues and procedural lapses. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the applications de novo and grant registration as per law after providing a proper hearing.

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

ITA 288/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of its agricultural income and the source of share capital. The AO's additions were based on material on record and inquiries.

M/S CGA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BATHINDA

ITA 198/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of its agricultural income and the source of share capital. The AO's additions were based on material on record and inquiries.

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

ITA 289/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of its agricultural income and the source of share capital. The AO's additions were based on material on record and inquiries.

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

ITA 290/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of its agricultural income and the source of share capital. The AO's additions were based on material on record and inquiries.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BATHINDA vs M/S. SHUVAM COLONISERS P.LTD, BATHINDA

ITA 577/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. This was primarily because the tax effect of the grounds raised by the revenue was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs M/S SHIVAM LEISURES PVT LTD, JAMMU

ITA 56/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a reasonable explanation for the reduction in property value. The original agreements were cancelled due to the sellers' inability to obtain necessary permissions, leading to renegotiation and purchase at reduced prices.

M/S CGA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BATHINDA

ITA 291/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of its agricultural income and the source of share capital. The AO's additions were based on material on record and inquiries.

RANJAN AGGARWAL,AMRITSAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, AMRITSAR

ITA 127/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by genuine cash sales supported by stock reports from the Excise and Taxation department. The unsecured loan was also found to be supported by documentary evidence and banking transactions.

DEEN DAYAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 219/ASR/2022[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessees were denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case due to technical issues and procedural lapses. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the applications de novo and grant registration as per law after providing a proper hearing.

SHRI ALLAH RAKHA,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

ITA 230/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the assessee's grounds and the factual matrix. The Tribunal also noted a discrepancy in the total cash deposit amount mentioned by the revenue.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs M/S J. K. MINT INDUSTRIES, BARI BRAHMANA

ITA 613/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the manager's statement lacked evidentiary value without cross-examination, and the PF report was not conclusive. It also noted the consistent allowance of the deduction in preceding and succeeding years.

GURU TEG BAHADUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,JALANDHAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 264/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the CIT(Exemptions) to grant registration from the date of application, i.e., AY 2017-18, as per the assessee's original request.