ITAT Guwahati Judgments — October 2021

HALADHAR DAS,CASHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

ITA 145/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the AO did not issue a notice under Section 143(2) as there was no statutory requirement when the assessment was completed under Section 144 due to non-compliance. However, it was found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard during the assessment proceedings.

SAMBHU SAHA,AGARTALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AGARTALA

ITA 231/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2021AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received the necessary form. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI vs YEAST DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

ITA 261/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme by depositing the tax. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the departmental appeal pending.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs M/S. SATYAM ISPAT, PAPUMPARE

ITA 88/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and deposited the required tax. Therefore, there was no reason to keep the departmental appeal pending.

BIMAN MUKHERJEE,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

ITA 108/GTY/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO erroneously added depreciation that was not claimed by the assessee. Since the assessee opted for presumptive taxation, claiming depreciation was not permissible, but more importantly, it was not claimed in the first place.

DEY'S PHARMACY,GUWAHATI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1), GUWAHATI

ITA 63/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Oct 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is attracted only when a payment or aggregate of payments to a person in a day exceeds Rs. 20,000. Since none of the individual bills/invoices exceeded Rs. 20,000, the disallowance was not sustainable.