ITAT Guwahati Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction before invoking Section 14A, as required by the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment vs. CIT. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed shown relevant expenses in its P&L account notes.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the Assessing Officer's remand report on additional evidence and also adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form-5. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained with due application of mind by the appropriate authority as required by law. Therefore, the notice was invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the territorial jurisdiction ground, noting the assessee's failure to inform the AO. However, it admitted the additional evidence and remitted the issue on merits back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26), they failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim. However, the turnover could not be considered as income, and the impugned order was not sustainable.