ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2022

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 86/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee companies, being subsidiaries of public companies, were not covered by the provisions of section 56(2)(viia). Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable on merits.

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

ITA 224/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's status as a government body and the circumstances leading to the delay. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.

SHRI ANKUSH GOKHROO,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 387/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable to trade credits and that the AO should have estimated the income based on profit margins rather than treating the entire amount as income. The matter was remanded to the AO for estimation of profit.

M/S SAVITRI PHULE MAHILA BAHU KUDDESHIYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD.,BHARATPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR

ITA 347/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 12,41,850/-. It found that the activities of the society were governed by the principle of mutuality, making its income outside the scope of the Income Tax Act.

RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR

ITA 37/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal noted that a typographical error in the tax audit report required verification of the actual payment dates. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that if payments were made before the due date of filing the return, disallowance was not required, and remanded the issue for verification of payment dates.

SHRI GHASI LAL GURJAR,JAIPUR vs ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

ITA 1372/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 148, record reasons for reopening, or obtain the required approval. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was also deemed invalid.

SHRI GHASI RAM GURJAR,JAIPUR vs ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

ITA 1373/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 148, record reasons for reopening, or obtain the required approval. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was also deemed invalid.

INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

ITA 85/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted in the assessee's quantum appeal, the penalty order had no legs to stand. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP P) LTD,JAIPUR vs ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 195/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case, considering the principles of natural justice and to avoid conflicting orders.

M/S OASIS LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.,SP-2, 22 GODAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, JAIPUR vs CPC, BENGALURU/ ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 160/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds. The Tribunal noted that the CPC had advised the assessee to file rectification requests, and technicalities should not prevent substantial justice.

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

ITA 910/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeal. It held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed because the assessee was not provided with the statement of a key witness and was denied the opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

ITA 819/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeal. It held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed because the assessee was not provided with the statement of a key witness and was denied the opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.

GUJRATI MAHAMANDAL HATI BHATA,AJMER vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), AJMER

ITA 811/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the necessary information regarding accumulation of income was already provided in Form 10B filed with the AO, this could be considered sufficient intimation under Section 11(2). Therefore, the benefit of Section 11(1) could not be denied solely for the non-filing of a separate, specific intimation.

RODU RAM JAT,JAIPUR vs ACIT, JAIPUR

ITA 196/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal decided to set aside the ex parte order and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case on merits, considering the grounds related to the definition of capital asset, cost of acquisition, and exemption under Section 54B.

WEALTHY SKY DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

ITA 15/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 43(5)(d) specifically excludes income from derivatives traded on a recognized stock exchange from being treated as speculative. Therefore, Explanation to Section 73 was not applicable, and the PCIT's revisionary order was incorrect.

JANJATI MAHILA VIKAS SANSTHAN,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, KOTA

ITA 277/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grievance was primarily about the denial of registration under section 12A. The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of registration under section 12A afresh, considering the first proviso to section 12A(2).

JANJATI MAHILA VIKAS SANSTHAN,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, KOTA

ITA 275/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grievance was primarily about the denial of registration under section 12A. The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of registration under section 12A afresh, considering the first proviso to section 12A(2).

JANJATI MAHILA VIKAS SANSTHAN,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, KOTA

ITA 276/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grievance was primarily about the denial of registration under section 12A. The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of registration under section 12A afresh, considering the first proviso to section 12A(2).

SHRI JAGPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR

ITA 758/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 11 days, finding sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the penalty appeal afresh, considering the remand report of the AO which indicated the assessee had purchased, not sold, the property.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

ITA 68/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's registration under Section 12A had been restored by a coordinate bench of the ITAT and affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the basis for reopening the assessment and denying exemption was invalid.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

ITA 66/JPR/2022[2005]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2022Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's registration under Section 12A had been restored by a coordinate bench of the ITAT and affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the basis for reopening the assessment and denying exemption was invalid.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

ITA 67/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's registration under Section 12A had been restored by a coordinate bench of the ITAT and affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the basis for reopening the assessment and denying exemption was invalid.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs SMT. ABDA BAI, KOTA

ITA 480/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The tribunal held that the tax effect must be calculated based on the assessed income, not on the allowable deduction amount. Since the calculated tax effect was below the monetary limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

ITA 163/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC is not justified.

SHRI AVANT MUTHA,JAIPUR vs ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

ITA 4/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had wasted the time of the court and revenue by not diligently pursuing the case. However, to provide a chance for the additional documents to be considered, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) upon payment of costs.

SHREE RADHEHYAM SHARNAM A SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY MARWAR JUNCTION,MAWAR JUNCTION PALI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 254/JPR/2021[0]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2022Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the pandemic and remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to submit documents.

SHREE RADHESHYAM SHARNAM,MARWAR JUNCTION vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 95/JPR/2021[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2022AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the pandemic and remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to submit documents.

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

ITA 125/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated without specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the additions made were based on estimation, and it is settled law that penalty is not leviable on estimated additions. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

ITA 11/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal allowed the claim, finding it not hit by Section 37(1) and CBDT Circular No. 5/2012.

GOVERDHAN PRASHAD SINGHAL,JAIPUR vs ACIT/DCIT, JAIPUR

ITA 62/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: On the issue of deduction under Section 54F (Department's Ground No. 1), the judgment does not record any specific finding or decision by the Tribunal. It is not explicitly stated whether the CIT(A) was justified or not. On the issue of Section 50C (Department's Ground No. 2 and Assessee's Ground No. 1), the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer applied the stamp duty value of Rs. 9,90,99,000/- for land and Rs. 2,18,50,441/- for buildings, totaling Rs. 12,09,49,441/-, which was higher than the stamp duty value of Rs. 11,19,40,441/-. The assessee argued that the stamp duty value exceeded the fair market value and submitted a valuation report. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the stamp duty authority applied different rates without reasonable basis and that the buyer contested the stamp duty assessment. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer adopted a deemed value for land and building without referring to the DVO as per Section 50C(2). The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground, implying that the stamp duty value as the sole basis for deemed consideration was not upheld in its entirety as applied by the AO, and the assessee's arguments regarding fair market value and disparate valuation were considered. On the issue of Section 50 (Assessee's Ground No. 2), the Tribunal found lacunae in the lower authorities' application of Section 50. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that Section 50 was not applicable in the case as the building was held for more than 3 years and the WDV was not correctly reduced from the entire block of assets. The assessee's Ground No. 2 was allowed. On the issue of notional rent on an old, unusable house (Assessee's Ground No. 3), the Tribunal noted that the assessee's properties were old, dilapidated, and not fit for habitable purposes, unlike the ready-to-use flats in the Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. case. The Tribunal found the AO/CIT(A)'s findings based on the Ansal case to be devoid of merit. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's Ground No. 3. Operative Directions: The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

DCIT, C-6, JAIPUR vs GOVERDHAN PRASAD SINGHAL, JAIPUR

ITA 64/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: On the issue of deduction under Section 54F (Department's Ground No. 1), the judgment does not record any specific finding or decision by the Tribunal. It is not explicitly stated whether the CIT(A) was justified or not. On the issue of Section 50C (Department's Ground No. 2 and Assessee's Ground No. 1), the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer applied the stamp duty value of Rs. 9,90,99,000/- for land and Rs. 2,18,50,441/- for buildings, totaling Rs. 12,09,49,441/-, which was higher than the stamp duty value of Rs. 11,19,40,441/-. The assessee argued that the stamp duty value exceeded the fair market value and submitted a valuation report. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the stamp duty authority applied different rates without reasonable basis and that the buyer contested the stamp duty assessment. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer adopted a deemed value for land and building without referring to the DVO as per Section 50C(2). The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground, implying that the stamp duty value as the sole basis for deemed consideration was not upheld in its entirety as applied by the AO, and the assessee's arguments regarding fair market value and disparate valuation were considered. On the issue of Section 50 (Assessee's Ground No. 2), the Tribunal found lacunae in the lower authorities' application of Section 50. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that Section 50 was not applicable in the case as the building was held for more than 3 years and the WDV was not correctly reduced from the entire block of assets. The assessee's Ground No. 2 was allowed. On the issue of notional rent on an old, unusable house (Assessee's Ground No. 3), the Tribunal noted that the assessee's properties were old, dilapidated, and not fit for habitable purposes, unlike the ready-to-use flats in the Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. case. The Tribunal found the AO/CIT(A)'s findings based on the Ansal case to be devoid of merit. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's Ground No. 3. Operative Directions: The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

BALJEET YADAV,JAIPUR vs PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 120/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction by expanding the scope of scrutiny beyond the CASS parameters. The AO had applied his mind and accepted the assessee's explanations, and the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not sustainable.