ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — October 2023

SARIKA GANDHI,SAGAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAGAR

ITA 84/JAB/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was crucial for adjudicating the issue. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence.

RAJESH JAIN,TIKAMGARH vs PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GWALIOR, GWALIOR

ITA 48/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided details of the capital account but not the source of a specific addition of Rs. 15,80,000. The AO should have investigated this source, and failure to do so rendered the assessment order erroneous.

PAPPU YADAV,TIKAMGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TIKAMGARH, TIKAMGARH

ITA 56/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, noting the assessee's failure to respond to notices from both the AO and CIT(A) despite having an email ID. A cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on the assessee.

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD. vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR,

ITA 187/JAB/2016[2002-03]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2002-03Allowed

The Tribunal found that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not strike off the relevant limb for levying penalty, failing to specify the exact charge. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD. vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR,

ITA 188/JAB/2016[2003-04]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2003-04Allowed

The Tribunal found that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not strike off the relevant limb for levying penalty, failing to specify the exact charge. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs M/S. VIJAN HOTEL PVT. LTD., JABALPUR

ITA 38/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the DVO's report, which is an estimate, cannot be taken as conclusive proof of undisclosed investment. The assessee had substantiated its declared investments with audited books of accounts and supporting bills. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition, and the revenue failed to provide cogent evidence to the contrary.

SAJAL NEMA,NARSINGHPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 24/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry regarding the cash deposits. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified, and the revision order was set aside.

RUBEENA SHAHIN KHAN,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 116/JAB/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of being heard and without considering the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal also questioned the reassessment proceedings and the addition of the full property value to the assessee's income.

MAHESHWARI MUKUND DAS,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JABALPUR

ITA 27/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that there was a lack of clarity on the facts and information presented. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the disputed issues to the AO for fresh examination and verification of evidence.

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY DISTRICT OFFICE SINGRAULI,SINGRAULI vs CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

ITA 29/JAB/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the submitted details. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

MOTOR MITRA,JABALPUR vs DCIT CIRCLE1(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 49/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the disallowance of employee's PF & ESIC contributions paid after the due date, as per the Supreme Court ruling. The grounds of appeal related to this issue were dismissed.

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

ITA 36/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. It found that the AO had applied his mind and considered the available information, and the assessment order did not meet the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

VIJAY OIL MILLS CO.,DAMOH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DAMOH

ITA 112/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's accounting policy of treating rental income as income from house property was consistently followed and accepted by the revenue in prior years. The adjustment made by the CPC was considered debatable.

PARVINDAR SINGH,JABALPUR vs ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 114/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case with evidence.