ITAT Nagpur Judgments — October 2022

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 237/NAG/2019[2013-14 Q-2]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods prior to this date.

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 238/NAG/2019[2013-14 Quarter3 ]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act, along with the amendment to Section 200A allowing for the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to this date.

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 240/NAG/2019[2014-15 Quarter -3]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods prior to this date.

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 241/NAG/2019[2014-15 Quarter-4]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act, along with the amendment to Section 200A allowing for the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 243/NAG/2019[2015-16 Quarter -3]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods prior to this date.

M/S MANASVI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ACIT-CPC, GAZIABAD

ITA 417/NAG/2019[2014-15(24Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)) at that time. However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is mandatory and not subject to waiver on grounds of reasonable cause.

M/S MANASVI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ACIT-CPC, GAZIABAD

ITA 418/NAG/2019[2013-14(Q4-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while Section 234E was introduced for late filing of statements, the specific enabling provision, Section 20A(1)(c), was effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levies for defaults prior to this date were unsustainable.

ANIL LADHARAM HASSIJA,GONDIA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD 2 (4), BHANDARA

ITA 37/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods prior to this date.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 62/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 65/NAG/2020[2015-16(Q2-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision. However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 67/NAG/2020[2015-16(Q4-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was unsustainable for defaults occurring prior to the enactment of the enabling provision, Section 20A(1)(c). However, for defaults occurring after the effective date of Section 20A(1)(c), the levy was considered mandatory and not subject to deletion on grounds of reasonable cause.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 68/NAG/2020[2016-17(Q1-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

ITA 98/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the AO had initiated proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction or non-payment of TDS. However, the AO failed to provide the assessees with an opportunity to be heard before passing the orders. The Tribunal found this to be a procedural lapse.

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

ITA 200/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was not applicable for defaults committed before this date.

R.A. QUIDWAIM HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE (SCI & MCVC),CHANDRAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-52(3), CHANDRAPUR

ITA 170/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was not applicable for defaults committed before this date.

R.A. QUIDWAIM HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE (SCI & MCVC),CHANDRAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-52(3), CHANDRAPUR

ITA 171/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was not applicable for defaults committed before this date.

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

ITA 197/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was not applicable for defaults committed before this date.

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

ITA 199/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was not applicable for defaults committed before this date.

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

ITA 198/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was not applicable for defaults committed before this date.

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS ), GHAZIABAD

ITA 100/NAG/2020[2015-16(Q4)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the AO had initiated proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction or non-payment of TDS. However, the AO failed to provide the assessees with an opportunity to be heard before passing the orders. The Tribunal found this to be a procedural lapse.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 66/NAG/2020[2015-16(Q3-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was unsustainable for defaults occurring prior to the enactment of the enabling provision, Section 20A(1)(c). However, for defaults occurring after the effective date of Section 20A(1)(c), the levy was considered mandatory and not subject to deletion on grounds of reasonable cause.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 60/NAG/2020[2014-15(Q1-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 63/NAG/2020[2014-15(Q4-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 61/NAG/2020[2014-15(Q2-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,AKOLA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2), AKOLA

ITA 406/NAG/2017[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods prior to this date.

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 239/NAG/2019[2013-14 Quarter4]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods prior to this date.

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 242/NAG/2019[2015-16 Quarter-2]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods prior to this date.

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,AKOLA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2), AKOLA

ITA 407/NAG/2017[2016-2017]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2016-2017Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods before this date.

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI,AKOLA vs ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 64/NAG/2020[2015-16(Q1-24Q)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is mandatory and not subject to waiver on grounds of reasonable cause.

ADILOK VIDYALAYA BODUNDA,GONDIA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), BHANDARA

ITA 35/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was unsustainable for defaults occurring prior to the enactment of Section 20A(1)(c), which provided the enabling provision. However, for defaults occurring after the enactment of Section 20A(1)(c), the levy was considered mandatory.

M/S MAYON'S PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 42/NAG/2020[2013-14(Q-2)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022

M/S MAYON'S PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 43/NAG/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

M/S MAYON'S PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 44/NAG/2020[2013-14(Q-4)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022

M/S MAYON'S PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 45/NAG/2020[2014-15(Q-1)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022

M/S MAYON'S PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 46/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

M/S MAYON'S PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 47/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC -(TDS), GHAZIABAD

ITA 99/NAG/2020[2015-16(Q-3)]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2022

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(2), NAGPUR vs SHRI SHARAD VASANTRAO GUDANDHE, NAGPUR

ITA 123/NAG/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(4), NAGPUR vs M/S REGHUKUL CONSTRUCTION, NAGPUR

ITA 122/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under the exceptions provided by the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SHRI SANJAY ANANDRAO MAHAJAN,NAGPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3), NAGPUR

ITA 74/NAG/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if the assessee does not participate. The impugned orders were set aside to allow the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

M/S MUSTUFA ASSOCIATES,CHANDRAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3, CHANDRAPUR

ITA 92/NAG/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the ground that similar relief was granted in a previous related appeal.

SMT REHANA KOTHAWALA,NAGPUR vs ACIT,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

ITA 93/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found the reason for the delay to be genuine and bona fide. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

SMT SAVITA PRAVIN GIRDE,NAGPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3), NAGPUR

ITA 75/NAG/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if the assessee does not participate. The impugned orders were set aside to allow the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

SHRI SANDEEP THANWARE,NAGPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(2), NAGPUR

ITA 72/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the AO's consideration of aerial distance was not relevant for the assessment year in question. It also noted that the CIT(A) relied on an un-confronted letter from NIT without proper details.

SHRI JITENDRA ANANDRAO MAHAJAN,NAGPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3), NAGPUR

ITA 73/NAG/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if the assessee does not participate. The impugned orders were set aside to allow the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

SMT . SUMAN ANANDRAO MAHAJAN,NAGPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3), NAGPUR

ITA 76/NAG/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if the assessee does not participate. The impugned orders were set aside to allow the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

SHRI NARESH JAGDISH AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs JCIT,TDS RANGE-2, NAGPUR

ITA 50/NAG/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted based on the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and no objection from the Revenue.

RADHESHYAM ONKARMAL AGRAWAL,AMRAVATI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

ITA 414/NAG/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should dispose of an appeal on merits even if the assessee remains absent, and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. The impugned order was set aside.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(5)`, NAGPUR vs SHRI SAIBABA BAHUUDESHIYA NAGRIK SAHAKARI PRATYAY SANSTHA MARYADIT, KHAPERKHEDA, NAGPUR

ITA 407/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals, the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(5), NAGPUR vs M.S.E.B. WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

ITA 406/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals, the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.