ITAT Amritsar Judgments — July 2023

INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) -1, JALANDHAR vs SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

ITA 24/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was quashed, the basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, HOSHIAPUR vs SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 163/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received was an award under Section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, and therefore, exempt from income tax as per the Act and CBDT circular. The AO exceeded his jurisdiction by investigating violations under a different law.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

ITA 28/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was quashed, the basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

ITA 25/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was quashed, the basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

ITA 27/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was quashed, the basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

ITA 26/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was quashed, the basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

ITA 23/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was quashed, the basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

HINDUSTAN WELFARE BLOOD DONOR CLUB,PHAGWARA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 195/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the bonafide reasons presented by the assessees regarding non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had passed orders without discussing the merits of the case.

HINDUSTAN WELFARE BLOOD DONOR CLUB,PHAGWARA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 194/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the bonafide reasons presented by the assessees regarding non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had passed orders without discussing the merits of the case.

LAKSHYA FOUNDATION,JALANDHAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 193/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the bonafide reasons presented by the assessees regarding non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had passed orders without discussing the merits of the case.

LAKSHAYA FOUNDATION,JALANDHAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 192/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the bonafide reasons presented by the assessees regarding non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had passed orders without discussing the merits of the case.

SH. BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT. RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 176/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

SHRI MURLI MANOHAR,JALANDHAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

ITA 555/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically on the same date as the assessment orders, indicating a non-application of mind by the competent authority. This vitiated the assessment orders.

SH BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT. RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 178/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

SH BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 181/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

SH BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT. RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 177/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

SH BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 179/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

SH. BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT. RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 175/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

SH BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT. RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 180/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

SH BARINDEJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT. RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 182/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

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

ITA 8/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind, which is a mandatory requirement. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio.

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

ITA 5/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind, which is a mandatory requirement. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio.

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

ITA 6/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind, which is a mandatory requirement. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio.

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

ITA 7/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind, which is a mandatory requirement. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio.

SHRIMATI AMARJIT KAUR W/O BUGAR SINGH,MANSA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MANSA

ITA 1/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was justified based on the unexplained cash deposit, as a prima facie belief of escaped income is sufficient at the reopening stage. The CIT(A) was also justified in confirming a part of the addition after considering available explanations.

SHRI SUKHEV SINGH,BATHINDA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA

ITA 146/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the legal issues raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the reopening were not adequately adjudicated. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide these legal issues and the quantum appeal afresh.

THE FEROZPUR CANTT PRIMARY CO-OP AGRI DEV. BANK LIMITED,FEROZPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE (III), FEROZPUR

ITA 524/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal noted that while Section 14A is applicable to income claimed as deduction under Section 80P, the assessee argued that investments were made from excess, non-interest-bearing funds. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to determine if the investments were indeed from such funds.

SHRI KATTAR SINGH,GIDDERBAHA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2), MUKTSAR

ITA 64/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the appeal was adjudicated without considering the assessee's submissions and without allowing the benefit of certain withdrawals from the bank account. The assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice principles.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

ITA 212/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus of proving the creditworthiness of the creditors, and mere filing of primary evidence like affidavits was insufficient. The AO was justified in making the addition.

SHRI MURLI MANOHAR,JALANDHAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

ITA 556/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically on the same date as the assessment orders, indicating a non-application of mind by the competent authority. This vitiated the assessment orders.

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

ITA 9/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind, which is a mandatory requirement. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio.

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

ITA 6/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was done mechanically based on the opinion of the CIT(A) without independent verification by the AO. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated on borrowed satisfaction.

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

ITA 171/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the transactions were in the nature of business exigency and not loans or advances falling under Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the addition made by the AO was quashed.

SH BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 184/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

SHRI KHURSHID AHMED WANI S/O GULAM MOHD WANI,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, SRINAGAR

ITA 191/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's non-resident status and lack of proper notice. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard.

SHRI GHULAM MOHD SHEIKH,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

ITA 168/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly served with notice under Section 142(1) and that the proceedings were vitiated due to lack of opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

SH BARINDERJIT SINGH L/H OF SMT RANJIT KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAPURTHALA

ITA 183/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated after the finalization of the quantum appeal, as the assessment itself was under challenge. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

F I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

ITA 72/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remitted the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The addition u/s 40(A)(ia) was upheld, and the disallowance of travelling expenses was confirmed.

NEW LIGHT FACILITY MANAGEMENT,JLANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4 (3), JALANDHAR

ITA 140/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying the earlier order under Section 154. The delay in depositing employees' contribution to PF & ESI makes the assessee ineligible for deduction as per Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B.

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE, TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET,MOGA vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE, MOGA

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case and that principles of natural justice were violated. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

ITA 111/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E is permissible in intimations issued under Section 200A after June 1, 2015, due to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2015. Since the TDS statements were filed after this date, the levy was upheld.

SHRI DARSHAN PAL SINGH GAREWAL,LUDHIANA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 389/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment order was quashed by a coordinate bench due to a mandatory procedural defect (lack of proper approval under Section 153D), the consequential penalty under Section 271AAB would not be maintainable. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.

SHRI SHAM LAL & SONS,AMRITSAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INOME TAX CENTRAL, LUDHIANA

ITA 103/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry regarding the stock surrender, and the PCIT's view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue was not sustainable. The PCIT's revisionary order was set aside.

SHRI MOHD AMIN MALIK,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JAMMU

ITA 99/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not mentioned service of notices and had dismissed the appeal without proper appreciation of facts and in violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

SHRI AMARJEET SINGH,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

ITA 60/ASR/2020[2008-09]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any corroborative documentary evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits, including the purported gift from his mother and loans from various persons. The explanations offered were considered unsustainable.

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET,MOGA vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE MOGA, MOGA

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case and that principles of natural justice were violated. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

INDERJIT KAUR SHAH,CHNDIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 ( 2), JALANDHAR

ITA 83/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation as a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was quashed.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

ITA 475/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on most grounds, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and explanations for the deleted additions. However, one ground related to Section 40A(3) was partly allowed in favor of the Revenue.

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

ITA 257/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the maturity amount of the LIC policy was taxable, the addition made by the AO was incorrect. The taxable income should be the maturity amount minus the premium paid, not the entire maturity amount.

SHRI DEEPAK SETIA, JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 112/ASR/2023[2019-2020]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that the conversion of business income into non-business income and the application of Section 69A were improper, especially when no other source of income was identified. Therefore, taxing this amount at the special rate under Section 115BBE was deemed incorrect.