ITAT Cuttack Judgments — July 2020

BALADEB MOHAPATRA,JAGATSINGHPUR vs ITO, WARD-1, PARADEEP

ITA 344/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that it cannot review its own decisions unless there is a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the sources of cash deposits, and the onus was on the assessee to discharge this duty.

RAYKAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 488/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2020AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the amount was initially received as a revenue receipt, intended for specific utilization on social needs and technical studies. Since it was written off by DUBAL and not converted into equity, it remained a revenue receipt and was taxable.

SUREKHA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 207/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries during the original assessment, and the revenue recognition method followed by the assessee was consistent and supported by project-wise revenue. The Pr. CIT had not conducted his own inquiry before deeming the order erroneous.

HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 391/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in initiating revision proceedings without proper application of mind and by considering an irrelevant assessment order. The assessee's method of revenue recognition (completed project method) was consistently followed and accepted by the department in prior years.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs SRI SANJAY SHARMA, BARGARH

ITA 316/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2020AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

M/S. LAXMI NARAYAN JEWELLERY,BALASORE vs ITO, WARD-2, BALASORE

ITA 394/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2020AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO adopted two conflicting views by adding the income to AY 2013-14 when it was offered for AY 2012-13. Since the assessment for AY 2012-13 was completed without considering this, and the statements clearly indicated the income belonged to AY 2012-13, the addition was deleted.

BINOD KUMAR AGARWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs ITO, WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 252/CTK/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2020AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was partly explained by rental income of Rs. 3,66,000/- and opening cash balance of Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, the claim that salary received in cash was part of the deposit was rejected.

SRI BIDYADHAR BEHERA,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 140/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2020AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO is duty-bound to supply the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. Non-supply of these reasons, even if the assessee participated, renders the reassessment order bad in law and without jurisdiction.