ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — September 2022

RITESH TANDON,JABALPUR vs ASSTT . DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, WARD2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 9/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions under section 143(1) are limited in scope and cannot be made for debatable issues, especially in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision supporting the addition. The Explanations inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective, not retrospective, for the assessment years in question.

RITESH TANDON,JABALPUR vs ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX WD2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 11/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions under section 143(1) are limited in scope and cannot be made for debatable issues, especially in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision supporting the addition. The Explanations inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective, not retrospective, for the assessment years in question.

PRAGYA SAVITA,JABALPUR vs A O CIRCLE2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 14/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be made under section 143(1) as it involved a debatable issue and there was no decision by the jurisdictional High Court on the matter. The Explanations to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

JABALPUR MOTORS LTD,JABALPUR vs ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BANGALORE., BANGALORE

ITA 22/JAB/2021[2019-2020]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 143(1) are limited to non-debatable issues. The Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were intended to be prospective, not retrospective, and therefore could not sustain the addition for the relevant assessment year.

MUKESH KALWAY,JABALPUR vs ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

ITA 32/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) are limited and debatable issues cannot be decided at this stage. The Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were intended as prospective amendments, not retrospective.

MUKESH KALWAY,JABALPUR vs ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 43/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) are limited and debatable issues cannot be decided at this stage. The Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were intended as prospective amendments and do not apply retrospectively to the assessment years in question.

MUKESH KUMER AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs DCIT-CIRCLE1(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 54/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 143(1) are not permissible for debatable issues, especially in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective, not retrospective.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, MOHANGARH BRANCH,JABALPUR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 60/JAB/2022[2015-2016]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The charging section is Section 234E, and the fee could be levied even before the machinery provision came into effect. Since the statements were filed after June 1, 2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,GOURIHAR BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 72/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The charging section is Section 234E, and the fee could be levied even prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c). Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,PIPAT BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 73/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E is valid, even for periods prior to the effective date of Section 200A, as Section 234E itself creates the charge. Since the statements in this case were filed after 01/06/2015, the processing under the amended Section 200A was permissible.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,TENDUKHEDA BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 77/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,BUXWAHA BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 75/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,LAUNDI BRANCH,SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 67/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,CHHATARPUR BRANCH, SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 68/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,SALEHA BRANCH,SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-2, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 66/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,MAHARAJPUR BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 70/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,KISHANGARH BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 74/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, MAJHOLI BRANCH,MAJHOLI vs CITO-TDS-2 JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 55/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, MANDI BAMORA BRANCH,JABALPUR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 63/JAB/2022[F.Y- 2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, NIWADI BRANCH,SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 59/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs DCIT- CIRCLE 1(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 53/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 143(1) are not permissible for debatable issues, especially in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective, not retrospective.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, RAJAPUR BRANCH,SAGAR vs ITO(TDS) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 58/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, LARON BRANCH,JABALPUR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 62/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK NEGUAN BRANCH,NEGUWAN SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 56/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, MAHEWA BRANCH,SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 64/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, ORCHHA BRANCH,SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 57/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, CHANDERA BRANCH,SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 61/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, RANIBAUG PANNA BRANCH,SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 65/JAB/2022[F.Y- 2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,TATTAM BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 69/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,MANDI ROAD NOWGONG BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 76/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK,BARIGARH BRANCH., SAGAR vs ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 71/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and does not confer substantive power. The levy of fee under Section 234E is valid even for periods prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c), as the charging section existed. Since the statements were filed after 01/06/2015, the levy was upheld.

NISHA SHARMA,NARSINGPUR vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

ITA 50/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: Heard12 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct adequate inquiry into the source of cash deposits and the genuineness of agricultural income. The assessment order lacked specific findings on these crucial aspects.

M/S KEMTANI & ASSOCIATES vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,

ITA 71/JAB/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proving the revision order was passed within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the revision order and the subsequent assessment were deemed invalid.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs M/S. KEMTANI & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

ITA 59/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proving the revision order was passed within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the revision order and the subsequent assessment were deemed invalid.

M/S.SAGAR TOBACCO & INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,SAGAR vs ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SAGAR

ITA 182/JAB/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2022AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s method of calculating the average profit flawed as it included the year under assessment. While agreeing with the principle of averaging past profits, the Tribunal modified the estimated gross profit rates for both assessment years to provide some allowance for the decline in disclosed profits.

ALOK KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 38/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind and conduct proper inquiries regarding the source and capacity of the creditor, rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT's order to set aside the assessment for de novo consideration was upheld.

M/S.SAGAR TOBACCO & INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,SAGAR vs ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SAGAR

ITA 181/JAB/2018[2004-05]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2022AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s method of calculating the average profit flawed as it included the year under assessment. While agreeing with the principle of averaging past profits, the Tribunal modified the estimated gross profit rates for both assessment years to provide some allowance for the decline in disclosed profits.

M/S SRBH EBGUNEERING & EQUIPMENT PVT LTD DELHA MOD, SARLA NAGAR, MAIHAR DISTT SATNA(M.P),SATNA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT CIR KATNI, JABALPUR

ITA 10/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) are limited in scope and cannot decide debatable issues. The Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective, not retrospective, for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was not justified.

M/S R S CARGO,SATNA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 12/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 154 were not justified as the Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance for the assessment year in question was incorrect.

M/S JATANBAN KEWAL CHAND DUGAD, HUF, CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs PR.CIT-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 25/JAB/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal decided to correct minor typographical errors in its previous order. These corrections do not alter the substance of the original decision or prejudice either party.