ITAT Jaipur Judgments — September 2023

GOLDEN INDIA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs ITO,EXEMPTION WARD,, AJMER

ITA 98/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to adduce additional evidence. Considering the case laws cited, the Tribunal held that repayment of a loan taken for charitable purposes should be treated as an application of income.

SHRI RAVI SHASTRI,JAIPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1323/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 31.00 lacs as undisclosed income, as the assessee failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the PMGKY scheme. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to abide by any favorable directions from the High Court in a pending writ petition filed by the assessee.

SHRWAN LAL ,JAIPUR vs ITO,WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

ITA 403/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) had erred in upholding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 and the subsequent assessment order. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

RAJESH KUMAR BAID,JAIPUR vs ITO WARD 5(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-representation and the lack of contrary submissions. Following established precedents for non-prosecution, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine.

M/S SKY ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,F-42, SHRINATH TOWERS, CENTRAL SPINE, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR vs ITO, WARD-4(2), , JAIPUR

ITA 392/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had stated that the land was sold below the DLC rate due to its location, it had not adequately explained why the DLC value assessed by the Sub-Registrar was not adopted for calculating LTCG under Section 50C. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's alternative plea to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the plot sold before invoking Section 50C. Citing precedents like 'Mansukhlal Ghelabhai Doshi vs. ACIT' and 'Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. DCIT', which mandate referring the valuation to the DVO when the assessee objects to the stamp duty valuation, the Tribunal directed the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the FMV. The relief to the assessee will be granted in accordance with law after the DVO's determination and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

MODERN PUBLIC VIKAS SAMITI TONK,TONK vs CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 276/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While not going into the merits, the Tribunal felt that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E) as they claimed a lack of adequate opportunity.

SHYAM MITRA MANDAL JOGBANI TRUST KHATUHYAM JI JILA SIKAR,SIKAR vs ITO, WARD-1, SIKAR

ITA 415/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee must be provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

SHYAM MITRA MANDAL JOGBANI TRUST KHATUSHYAM JI JILA SIKAR,SIKAR vs ITO, WARD-1, SIKAR

ITA 414/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee must be provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

SURJIT KAUR,JAIPUR vs ITO WARD 4(3), JPR, JAIPUR

ITA 401/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment and the first appeal were ex-parte. Considering the assessee's plea of being a lady and the pandemic situation, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to hear the case on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity.

M/S RAMAVTAR KRISHNAVTAR,KOTA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), KOTA

ITA 25/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowing expenses on a presumption without specific findings is not sustainable. Regarding interest on debit balances, the Tribunal found that the partnership deed did not require charging interest and that taxing notional income is not permissible under the Income Tax Act.

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support its claims regarding TDS deductions and other disallowances. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was justified.

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It found that the PCIT's observations on several grounds, including the claim of deduction under section 80-IC and related issues of sales reporting and financial statements, were not in line with the facts and law.

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs ACIT, JAIPUR

ITA 253/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while some cash payments were disallowed, others could be allowed based on business expediency and the genuineness of the transactions, citing judicial precedents. The disallowance was partly upheld and partly deleted.

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs ACIT, ACIT

ITA 100/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 65,79,132/- as short-term capital gains, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted that the assessee purchased the property and the source of funds was not disputed in earlier assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee was one of the co-buyers and had acted as a seller in his capacity as a power of attorney holder for seven individuals. Since the earlier assessment proceedings had accepted the fact that the assessee purchased the property, and the source of purchase was verified, the revenue could not fasten the liability of the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value under Section 50C in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had categorically held that the assessee was the purchaser of the property, and therefore, the difference between the stamp duty value and actual consideration could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal was allowed. Since the appeal was decided on merits, the ground of reopening became academic. The Tribunal did not require adjudication on ground no. 3, which was general.

VIJAY SOLVEX LTD,ALWAR vs DCIT, ALWAR

ITA 357/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that a single instance of a discount scheme illustration, without any direct or corroborative evidence, cannot be considered as unaccounted sales. The explanation provided by the assessee was found satisfactory.

URMILA TANK,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

ITA 259/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that duty drawback is part of gross receipts for the purpose of Section 44AD. However, the addition related to export sales was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide complete details and reconcile discrepancies with CBEC data.

RAJDHANI MINERAL JAIPUR PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-I , JAIPUR

ITA 333/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal accepted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was not presented before the lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the AO to decide afresh after considering these new evidences and hearing the assessee's submissions.

UMA MANDAL,JAIPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B for not getting accounts audited is not leviable if books of accounts were not maintained in the first place. However, penalty for non-maintenance of books of accounts under Section 271A was confirmed due to lack of justification from the assessee.

UMA MANDAL ,JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B for not getting accounts audited is not leviable if books of accounts were not maintained in the first place. However, penalty for non-maintenance of books of accounts under Section 271A was confirmed due to lack of justification from the assessee.

UMA MANDAL,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 282/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to controvert the findings of the lower authorities and the addition was consistent with the previous assessment year, the appeal should be dismissed.

UMA MANDAL,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2) JAIPUR

ITA 283/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not filing the return was not satisfactory and that the penalty under Section 271F was automatic when the conditions were met. The lower authorities' orders were upheld.

RAJKUMARI GUPTA,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER , STATUE CIRCLE

ITA 334/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,72,780 as capital gains, considering the stamp duty valuation. It also upheld the ad-hoc addition of Rs. 5,00,000 to business income due to the assessee's failure to produce proper books of accounts.

ALOKE GOSWAMI,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD, BHIWADI, BHIWADI ALWAR

ITA 388/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing, considering the possibility that cash deposits could be explained by the sale of property. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a decision on merits after affording proper opportunity.

DEEN DAYAL SHARMA,A-135, GOVINDPURA, KARDHANI, KALWAR ROAD, JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), JAIPUR

ITA 394/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the addition for unexplained cash deposits, finding that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to allow further expenses related to short-term capital gains for statistical purposes.

SHRI NARESH KUMAR CHOUDHARYTHROUGH LEGAL HEIR SUNITA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 , JAIPUR

ITA 191/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was lethargic in pursuing the case before the lower authorities. However, considering the assessee's prayer for one more opportunity to submit evidence and arguments, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

GHANSHYAM GUPTA,8, DASHERA KOTHI,,GOVIND NAGAR, JAIPUR vs ITO, WARD 5 (1) JAIPUR

ITA 246/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not justified as the cash deposits were recorded in the assessee's books of account. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding the source of funds.

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT failed to bring strong material to justify the allegation that the assessment order was erroneous. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and examinations, and the assessment order could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

JAGAT SINGH RATHORE,TONK vs ITO WD 7(2), , JAIPUR

ITA 139/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, finding it necessary for substantial justice. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and other submitted details.

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED ,BHARATPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

ITA 325/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments were for the purchase of goods, not for any work contract. Therefore, Section 194C was wrongly invoked by the lower authorities.

DURGA DEVI SOHAN LAL KHATRI CHARITABLE TRUST ,AJMER vs THE CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 327/JPR/2023[Not Applicable]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard for both applications. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case.

SEDU RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

ITA 383/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a typographical error in the email address, which prevented the assessee from being heard by the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED,BHARATPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

ITA 323/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments were for the purchase of goods, not for any work contract. Therefore, Section 194C was wrongly invoked by the lower authorities.

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 321/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments were for the purchase of goods, not for any work contract. Therefore, Section 194C was wrongly invoked by the lower authorities.

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED,BHARATPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR

ITA 324/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments were for the purchase of goods, not for any work contract. Therefore, Section 194C was wrongly invoked by the lower authorities.

DURGA DEVI SOHAN LAL KHATRI CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAIPUR vs THE CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 326/JPR/2023[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard for both applications. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case.

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 322/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments were for the purchase of goods, not for any work contract. Therefore, Section 194C was wrongly invoked by the lower authorities.

7 HORSES HOSPITALITY LLP,JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 332/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable to adjustments made under Section 143(1)(a) as well. However, it directed the AO to verify timely payments of employee contributions.

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

ITA 203/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had made plausible inquiries and taken a view permissible in law, and the PCIT's revision was based on a change of opinion rather than a demonstrable error.

SUBHASH CHAND SAINI,JAIPUR vs ITO WARD, BEHROR

ITA 230/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 44AD allows presumptive taxation for businesses with turnover up to Rs. 2 crores. Since the assessee's turnover, as determined by the CIT(A), was below Rs. 2 crores and the return was filed under Section 44AD, the requirement for audit under Section 44AB was not attracted.

ROHITABH SONI,KOTA vs ITO, WARD 1(4), KOTA

ITA 349/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015Remanded

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also noted that the lower authorities adopted a purchase price higher than the registry value.

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 350/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a fair chance to present its case due to the short notice given to the director for personal appearance. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration.

M/S JAIPUR COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS,404,4TH FLOOR, MILESTONE BUILDING, GANDHI NAGAR MODE, TONK ROAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2), JAIPUR

ITA 379/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not address the assessee's adjournment request, depriving them of a proper hearing. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

SHANKAR LAL MAHESHWARI ,B-223, KIRTI NAGAR, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD– 6(2), JAIPUR

ITA 299/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the issue of short-term capital gains. It held that the cost of repurchasing plots, sold prior to the final allotment of land by the Joint Development Authority (JDA) and subsequently reacquired to make the remaining land marketable, should be considered as part of the total cost of acquisition. The Tribunal noted that the sale and repurchase documents were not disputed and that the repurchase in 2013-14 was necessary for the marketability of the land allotted in 2008-09. Therefore, the denial of the cost benefit of Rs. 10,22,900/- by the lower authorities was deemed uncalled for and vacated. Regarding the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit, the judgment indicates that the assessee's appeal on this ground was not pressed (Ground No. 1 in ITA No. 299/JP/2023 was dismissed as not pressed). The Tribunal also noted that Ground No. 4 was general in nature and did not require adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed.

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition of the full amount was not sustainable and directed the AO to tax only the peak credit available with the assessee during the year.

MOMINA SHEIKH,JAIPUR vs ITO WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

ITA 381/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was indeed lethargic in pursuing the case before the lower authorities, it also observed that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted evidence of an adjournment application filed on 27.04.2023 for the hearing on 24.04.2023, citing the EID festival and the need to collect documents. The e-proceedings response acknowledgment indicated that the appellant had expired and the legal heir was contesting the appeal, and that detailed submissions would be furnished within 7 days. The Tribunal felt that the assessee, for various reasons, could not advance her arguments before the lower authorities and granted one more opportunity to submit evidence and contest the case before the AO. The Tribunal explicitly stated that its decision to restore the matter to the AO should not be construed as having any reflection on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the AO in accordance with law. The issue of the assessment being a nullity due to being in the name of a deceased person was not explicitly decided on merits but implicitly addressed by restoring the matter for fresh adjudication.

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

ITA 263/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 263 as it is the prerogative of the AO. It also found that the AO had considered the issue of investments and income offered by the assessee.