ITAT Guwahati Judgments — September 2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 9/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and void. This was due to a change of opinion by the AO, lack of proper reasons to believe for reopening, and a violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 13/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and void. This was due to a change of opinion by the AO, lack of proper reasons to believe for reopening, and a violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs M/S. EVEREST INFRA ENERGY LTD, NAHARLAGUN

ITA 26/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It held that since the assessment was unabated on the date of the search, no addition could be made without incriminating material found during the search.

VINAY BAWRI,KOLKATA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

ITA 42/GTY/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Principal CIT was barred by limitation. The limitation period for revision runs from the date of the original assessment order, not the subsequent reassessment, when the issue under revision was not part of the reassessment.

PACPL BIPL JV,GUWAHATI vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T., CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL A.O. - ITO, WARD-3(3), GUWAHATI

ITA 18/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished Form 26A and a certificate from a CA during the scrutiny assessment, proving the payee had included the income and paid taxes. The CIT(A) had not considered this evidence.

ANAND PODDAR,GUWAHATI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

ITA 240/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions outside the scope of limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny. The assessment order was quashed as bad in law.

ANAND PODDAR,GUWAHATI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

ITA 239/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions outside the scope of limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny. The assessment order was quashed as bad in law.

R.C. AGENCIES,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-NORTH L:AKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

ITA 114/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act do not have evidentiary value to make additions, especially when retracted and explained. Therefore, additions based solely on such statements are not sustainable.

VISHASH AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

ITA 39/GTY/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is valid, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

NATURAL PANEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MARGHERITA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI

ITA 10/GTY/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to section 143(1)(a) mandates an intimation to the assessee before making adjustments. Since no such opportunity was provided, the adjustment was deemed illegal and bad in law.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, DIBRUGARH

ITA 58/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 52/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 63/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs RAVI BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 62/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs VISHAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 60/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs SHEETAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 64/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs PRAMOD KUMAR BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 65/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs VINAY BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 61/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs BHAGWATI DEVII BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 59/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs VINOD BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 66/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

ITA 68/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years required the Assessing Officer (AO) to demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. Since the AO failed to provide any such evidence in the reasons recorded, the reopening was deemed invalid.

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

ITA 69/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. The Tribunal also noted that the transactions were conducted through stock exchanges with registered brokers and payments were made through banking channels.

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

ITA 67/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years required the Assessing Officer (AO) to demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. Since the AO failed to provide any such evidence in the reasons recorded, the reopening was deemed invalid.

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI vs M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 83/GTY/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, thus upholding the deletion of additions. The partial addition sustained by the CIT(A) was also set aside as unsustainable.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATIU vs MANOHAR MERCHANTS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 82/GTY/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, thus upholding the deletion of additions. The partial addition sustained by the CIT(A) was also set aside as unsustainable.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs POTENCIAL VINCOM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 80/GTY/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, thus upholding the deletion of additions. The partial addition sustained by the CIT(A) was also set aside as unsustainable.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs POTENCIAL VINCOM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 81/GTY/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, thus upholding the deletion of additions. The partial addition sustained by the CIT(A) was also set aside as unsustainable.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 55/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 51/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 53/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs USHA BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 57/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

ITA 56/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

ITA 54/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.