ITAT Amritsar Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic and mechanical order without addressing the effective grounds of appeal. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that merely filing an application for registration under Section 12AA does not automatically grant eligibility for exemption. There is no concept of deemed approval under the law.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by not properly rebutting the assessee's claim with corroborative evidence. The assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to insurgency in Kashmir and the death of the trustee's brother. It noted that the trust is now registered under sections 12AA and 80G and that the assessee has maintained proper books of accounts. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A without affording the AO an opportunity to rebut it. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the principles of natural justice and relevant case law.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in passing the revisional order using the PAN of the deceased assessee, which rendered the order a nullity. The Tribunal also found that the Assessing Officer had received all relevant documents for agricultural income during the assessment proceedings and that the PCIT had not brought any material to show the assessment order was contrary to law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made observations without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and that the nature of addition was changed from capital gain by the AO to deemed income under Section 69A by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed invalid and void ab initio.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not maintainable when the quantum addition is set aside for de novo assessment. The AO is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh after the de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified, even if a wrong section was initially mentioned. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not prejudiced by the mention of the wrong section and that the facts supported the addition as unexplained cash credits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal, as the revenue did not object. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that TDS under Section 194A is not applicable on interest payments to nominal members of a cooperative society. The Tribunal relied heavily on the ITAT Amritsar Bench's decision in The Jhingran Coop. Multipurpose Service Society Ltd. (supra), which in turn followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling and the Bombay High Court's judgment in The Jalgon District Central Bank. These judgments established that the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) is not affected by distinguishing between registered and nominal members, and that the CBDT cannot alter the scope of this exemption through circulars. The Tribunal also noted that the NFAC had previously accepted nominal members as eligible for this exemption in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year, invoking res judicata. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 53,050 was quashed, and the impugned order of the NFAC was held to be infirm and against the law. The Tribunal's ratio decidendi is that nominal members of a cooperative society are to be treated as 'members' for the purpose of the TDS exemption under Section 194A(3)(v), and any attempt by the CBDT to create a distinction is ultra vires.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly investigated the cash flow and the explanation for the cash deposits, particularly concerning the KDR investment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.

The tribunal rejected the adjournment application due to lack of merits and bonafide reasons, noting multiple opportunities were given. The appeal was dismissed with a liberty to revive if the VsV declaration is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the service of a valid notice is a prerequisite for jurisdiction and that the principle of natural justice was violated. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in directing the valuation of land at Rs. 3 lacs per acre instead of Rs. 450 per sq. ft. (Rs. 1,94,40,000/- per acre) as adopted by the AO. It also questioned the CIT(A)'s decision to assess the sale consideration of land and building in the hands of the firm, rather than the partners who sold the land.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) accepted there was no incriminating material, making the assessment under Section 153A uncalled for. Consequently, the penalty order, which is dependent on the quantum order, was also questioned. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for further adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including skill development and women's empowerment, fall under the definition of charitable purposes as per Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 and relevant case law supporting the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the service of a valid notice is a condition precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction and that the principle of natural justice was violated. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the service of valid notice is a prerequisite for jurisdiction and that the principle of natural justice was violated. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the service of a valid notice is a condition precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction and that the principle of natural justice was violated. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.