ITAT Amritsar Judgments — July 2023

SUNITA JAIN,KAPURTHALA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 125/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the PCIT, finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to the AO's lack of proper verification. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribed by the CBDT for verifying cash deposits during demonetization.

SHRI RAJAN SHARMA C/O MEEK ENTERPRISES,PHAGWARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHAGWARA

ITA 53/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) as a purely legal issue. It found that the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to pass the assessment order needed to be ascertained first.

SHRI SATNAM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-, JALANDHAR

ITA 154/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order on merits and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SHRI SATNAM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 153/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order on merits and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SHRI NIRMAL SINGH S/O SHRI NIRANJAN SINGH,FARIDKOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

ITA 52/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was to ensure the assessee is given adequate opportunity to present their case and provide necessary documentation, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

SHRI NIRMAL SINGH S/ O SHRI NIRANJAN SINGH,FARIDKOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (4), FARIDKOT

ITA 51/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was to ensure the assessee is given adequate opportunity to present their case and provide necessary documentation, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

SHRI SATNAM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 155/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order on merits and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

ITA 90/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found the bank statements and cashier's statements to be reliable evidence proving the cash deposits made by the assessee.

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the transactions were for business expediency, with funds being advanced and repaid based on mutual business requirements and not for individual benefit of shareholders. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

SHRI INDERJIT BAJAJ,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 76/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Jul 2023AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the disallowances under section 36(1)(va) and 43B were correctly made based on the tax audit report, the additional ground regarding allowing the expenses under section 37(1) warranted further adjudication.

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1, BATHINDA

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the transactions were for business expediency, with funds being advanced and repaid based on mutual business requirements and not for individual benefit of shareholders. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

M/S. GILL RICE MILL,BATHINDA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

ITA 121/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the change of auditor constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. The assessee was not a habitual defaulter in filing such reports.

M/S. SHOWKAT ALI KHATAI,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), SRINAGAR

ITA 97/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed11 Jul 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to submit documents due to the flood. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication and consideration on compassionate grounds.

SHRI MOHAMMAD SIDIQ MUSTAQ AHMED,SRINAGAR vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

ITA 259/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 5% was illogical and mechanical without proper substantiation. It also emphasized the importance of natural justice and the right to a personal hearing.

M/S. RAJ DEV,KOTKAPURA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

ITA 93/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation that failure to provide cross-examination was not a fatal flaw was a gross violation of natural justice. The statements of certain individuals were recorded ex-parte and used against the assessee without an opportunity for cross-examination.

MADAD CHARITABLE TRUST,SRINAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 246/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

MADAD CHARITABLE TRUST,SRI NAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 245/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

SHRI MAHDUL MULIMAT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BARAMULA vs COMMIISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 243/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH, JALANDHAR

ITA 46/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found a lack of opportunity for the revenue in the CIT(A)'s order and that discrepancies pointed out by the AO in the remand report remained unexplained. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) calculated commission without a proper basis. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

J AND K STATE WELFARE INSTITUTE,SRINAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 249/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

THE TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION PVT. LTD,SRINAGAR vs THE ASSESING OFFICER(TDS), SRINAGAR

ITA 753/ASR/2014[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the tax liability for short deduction on rent and professional fees due to lack of evidence from the assessee. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that freight expenses were petty and not subject to TDS under Section 194C, and that guide charges were incidental to business and not commission under Section 194H.

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

ITA 65/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found a lack of opportunity for the revenue in the CIT(A)'s order and that discrepancies pointed out by the AO in the remand report remained unexplained. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) calculated commission without a proper basis. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to choose the DCF method as per Rule 11UA, and the AO could not change the method without establishing discrepancies in the data provided. The Tribunal also allowed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of interest on delayed TDS payment.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (2), BATHINDA vs M/ S ALTIUS SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BATHINDA

ITA 709/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the payment was made through account payee cheque and the genuineness of the transaction was not disputed, the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not violated. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

SHRI HARBANS SINGH MANN,MANSA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (4), MANSA

ITA 129/ASR/2022[2010-10]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2010-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid as the reasons were based on tangible material and the CIT's approval was not mechanical. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found that the cash deposits were contemporaneous to the sale of land and supported by the agreement, thus deleting the addition.

M/S BINDRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

ITA 190/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs was arbitrary as no lacuna was found in the books of accounts, and the difference in net profit was explained by FDR interest. The matter of depreciation was remitted back to the AO for recalculation as per the Income Tax Act.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

ITA 196/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not reject the books of account without pinpointing specific defects. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the surrendered income covered the defects, and business losses could be set off against surrendered income for the assessment year in question.

BANI MEDICAL ENTERPRISES,AMRITSAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

ITA 78/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had made proper inquiries and verified the facts, including issuing multiple notices and questionnaires. The PCIT failed to provide contrary material to show the AO's view was erroneous, and the revisionary order was not justified.

SHRI ASHIQ HUSSAIN NAJAR,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1), SRINAGAR

ITA 13/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was acting as an agent for Bata India Ltd. and the funds were not his personal income. The matter was remitted back to the AO for proper adjudication after considering the evidence.

SHRI GAMDOOR SINGH,MANSA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (5), MANSA

ITA 149/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay due to the assessee's bonafide reasons and adjudicated the appeal on merits. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the merits of the case regarding the addition made under Section 68.

EKAM WINES,BATHINDA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), BATHINDA

ITA 161/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that if books of account are not maintained, the requirement for an audit under Section 44AB does not arise. Therefore, a penalty under Section 271B for non-compliance with Section 44AB cannot be imposed.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR vs M/S TRANS ASIA INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION (P) LTD, SRINAGAR

ITA 751/ASR/2014[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the tax liability for short deduction on rent and professional fees due to lack of evidence from the assessee. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that freight expenses were petty and not subject to TDS under Section 194C, and that guide charges were incidental to business and not commission under Section 194H.

J AND K STATE WELFARE INSTITUTE,SRINAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 250/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

SHRI ANSAR UL NISSA,BARAMULA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 241/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

SHRI MAHDUL MUSLIMAT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BARAMULA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 244/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

MOHAMMADIA YATEEM TRUST,SRINAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 247/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

SHRI ANSAR UL NISSA,BARARMULA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 242/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

Y S MAKHDOOMI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,SRINAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 240/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

KASMIR CONCERN FOUNDATION,BUDGAM vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 251/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

MOHAMMADIA YATEEM TRUST,SRINAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIOS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 248/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

KASMIR CONCERN FOUNDATION,BUDGAM vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 252/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

Y S MAKHDOOMI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,SRINAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 239/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(E) had rejected the application based on a lack of documents despite a submission made by the assessee.

GLITTERS FOREVER HOSE KEEPING SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

ITA 100/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed6 Jul 2023AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the ground of appeal on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SINGHLA,MANSA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

ITA 100/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed6 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had made due inquiries regarding the source of the cash deposit by issuing a specific query and considering the assessee's reply. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was based on a difference of opinion, not a lack of inquiry, and was therefore invalid.

GLITTERS FOREVER HOUSE KEEPING SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

ITA 99/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Jul 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the ground of appeal on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.