ITAT Amritsar Judgments — March 2023

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 35/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming 10% of the additions made by the AO without proper appreciation of facts and legal position. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for confirming only 10% of the additions.

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 36/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming 10% of the additions made by the AO without proper appreciation of facts and legal position. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for confirming only 10% of the additions.

SHRI MANJINDER SINGH S/O SHRI SATNAM SINGH,KAPURTHALLA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, KAPURTHALA

ITA 5/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the material evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate the source of cash. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.

SHRI RAGHAV AGGARWAL,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (2), JAMMU

ITA 568/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the committee loss was utilized for the assessee's business. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal held that the issue needed verification by the CIT(A) regarding the purpose of participation and utilization of funds for business.

LATE SHRI KRISHAN GOPAL MARWAHA,HOSHIARPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 724/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income without making any addition, the surrendered income cannot form the basis for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty order was deemed perverse and bad in law.

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

ITA 258/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of agricultural income, which is not taxable. It also noted that the assessee, being an agriculturist, is not required to maintain books of accounts, and a bank passbook is not considered a book of accounts for the purpose of Section 68.

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 34/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming 10% of the additions made by the AO without proper appreciation of facts and legal position. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for confirming only 10% of the additions.

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JALANDAHR

ITA 57/ASR/2022[2012-12]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2012-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the surrender was made under pressure and without corroborating evidence, thus deleting the additions related to the surrender. Regarding the bearer cheque, the Tribunal found that the AO's report suggested forged signatures and the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without forensic evidence.

SHRIMATI. LATA NARANG,JALANDHAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as the AO had made inquiries, distinguishing between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. Furthermore, the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme rendered the PCIT's revisionary action impermissible.

JOLLY'S SOOTHING ERA FOUNDATION,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4 (3), JALANDHAR

ITA 255/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The tribunal found that the adjournment applications may not have been properly received by the PCIT due to technical issues. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the PCIT for a fresh adjudication.

M/S ESS ESS KAY ENGG. CO.P LTD,KAPURTHALA vs DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

ITA 178/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had presented detailed submissions and comparative analyses that were not fully appreciated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

MESERS ESS ESS ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

ITA 400/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed submissions and comparative analysis regarding trade discounts and sales. It concluded that the lower authorities had not fully appreciated these submissions.

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 56/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the surrender was made under pressure and without corroborating evidence, thus deleting the additions related to the surrender. Regarding the bearer cheque, the Tribunal found that the AO's report suggested forged signatures and the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without forensic evidence.

SH. YASH PAUL MALHOTRA (HUF),JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), JALANDHAR

ITA 225/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee was able to correlate the undisclosed amount with its business operations by submitting supporting documents. Therefore, the addition was liable to be taxed at normal rates, not as deemed income under Section 115BBE.

SHRI REYAZ AHMAD RATHER,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), SRINAGAR

ITA 385/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2023AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the documents submitted before it were new and not properly verified by lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.

SHRI KRISHAN CHANDER,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (5), JALANDHAR

ITA 540/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the assessee's appeals as it did not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the PCIT under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the appeals filed before the ITAT were also dismissed.

SHRI KRISHAN CHANDER,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 ( 5), JALANDHAR

ITA 539/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the assessee's appeals as it did not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the PCIT under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the appeals filed before the ITAT were also dismissed.

BHAG KAUR AND HARNAM SINGH ZORIA,DASUYA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 16/ASR/2021[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the registration solely on the grounds of corpus donation treatment and FCRA issues, especially when the trust's genuineness and objects were not in question. The Tribunal relied on High Court and ITAT precedents.

M.K HOTELS & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

ITA 57/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay, primarily due to confusion regarding the service of the intimation notice via email to a former accountant. The Tribunal noted that the merits of the case were not considered by the CIT(A).

SHRI KRISHAN CHANDER,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (5), JALANDHAR

ITA 541/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the assessee's appeals as it did not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the PCIT under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the appeals filed before the ITAT were also dismissed.

SHRI KRISHAN CHANDER,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (5 ), JALANDHAR

ITA 542/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the assessee's appeals as it did not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the PCIT under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the appeals filed before the ITAT were also dismissed.