ITAT Guwahati Judgments — September 2022

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGAON vs BCMS TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BONGAIGAON

ITA 330/GTY/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and paid the taxes. The Revenue had no objection to the appeal being dismissed on this ground.

SRD NUTRIENTS (P) LTD.,DARRANG vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

ITA 173/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to furnish supporting evidence and be vigilant in attending hearings.

M/S. EVEREST INFRA ENERGY LTD.,NAHARLAGUN vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - TEZPUR, TEZPUR

ITA 187/GTY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the commercial expediency for providing interest-free advances to related parties. Consequently, the disallowance of interest expenditure on borrowed funds used for these advances was upheld.

ASSAM VALLEY FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,GUWAHATI vs PR. CIT-1, GUWAHATI

ITA 18/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- SILCHAR, SILCHAR

ITA 120/GTY/2011[1/4/1989 to 8/12/1999]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that if the assessment order, which is the basis for consequential proceedings like penalty, is time-barred, it is a nullity. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed.

SHRI ASHISH KUMAR DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

ITA 122/GTY/2011[1/4/1989 to 8/12/1999]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that if the assessment order, which is the basis for consequential proceedings like penalty, is time-barred, it is a nullity. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JORHAT, JORHAT vs M/S. TOOR FINANCE COMPANY LTD, JORHAT

ITA 305/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions on grounds unrelated to the original reason for reopening if no addition is made on that specific ground. The CIT(Appeals) had rightly deleted the additions on this basis.

SMT. MAYA RANI DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

ITA 121/GTY/2011[1/4/1989 to 8/12/1999]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that if the assessment order, which is the basis for consequential proceedings like penalty, is time-barred, it is a nullity. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs SINU SONTHALIA, GUWAHATI

ITA 308/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the liability to Alok Sonthalia, the assessee's husband, was genuine and confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition. However, for M/s. Anurag Packaging and M/s. Maa Kamakhya Packaging, the Tribunal found the creditors to be fictitious based on spot inquiry and lack of documentation, thus upholding the AO's additions.

JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

ITA 139/GTY/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that Rs. 50 lakhs of the share application money was received in the preceding year and thus not taxable in the current year. The remaining Rs. 39 lakhs was satisfactorily explained as received through banking channels from a director, proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, DIBRUGARH vs OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

ITA 356/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: Heard8 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute with the Revenue under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Department had issued the ultimate declaration form. Therefore, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.

SHRI JIBAN PAUL,SONITPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

ITA 49/GTY/2019[2013-14]Status: Heard8 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and provided a declaration in Form No. 5. Therefore, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

ITA 223/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: Heard6 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was based on the assessee's undertaking to withdraw the appeal.