ITAT Panaji Judgments — December 2018

SHRI AMRUTRAJ SHIVANAND NESARI,BELGAVI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAVI

ITA 316/PAN/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as it is obliged to decide the appeal on merits. The dismissal for non-prosecution is contrary to the High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

M/S GAJALAXMI TRANSPORT, BELGAVI,BELGAVI vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 2, BELGAVI, BELGAVI

ITA 287/PAN/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as it is obliged to decide the appeal on merits. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

SHRI ADVESH SANGAPPA GHANIGER, BELGAUM,BELGAUM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM, BELGAUM

ITA 307/PAN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2018AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as the law obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity. The dismissal for non-prosecution is considered ultra vires.

MR. GIRISH PRAKASH VERNEKAR,BELGAVI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BELGAVI

ITA 255/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessee with details of the material found on Rajesh Exports' hard disk, despite requests. The assessee was not given an opportunity to rebut the allegations or cross-examine the supplier.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BELAGAVI vs SH. GIRISH PRAKASH VERNEKAR, BELAGAVI

ITA 228/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessee with the details of the cash sales found on the supplier's hard disk, thus denying the assessee an opportunity to rebut the allegations. The Tribunal found the additions to be unsustainable due to lack of proper evidence and opportunity.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BELAGAVI vs SHRI GIRISH PRAKASH VERNEKAR, BELAGAVI

ITA 226/PAN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the AO failed to provide the assessee with the details of the seized material from the supplier, thus denying the assessee an opportunity to rebut the allegations. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BELAGAVI vs SHRI GIRISH PRAKASH VERNEKAR, BELAGAVI

ITA 227/PAN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to excess stock and low gross profit, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and the CIT(A) had valid reasons. The Tribunal also deleted the partial disallowance on URD purchases, stating that no defects were found in the purchase documents and sales were not doubted.

DEVASHRI NIRMAN LLP,PANAJI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 272/PAN/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2018AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's interpretation of Accounting Standard 7 and the Guidance Note on Real Estate Transactions, which allowed for non-recognition of profit until 20-25% completion, was a legally permissible and debatable view. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

SMT SUNANDA ANIL SALVE,NIPANI, BELGAVI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

ITA 241/PAN/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal held that the taxability of capital gains should be based on real income. It directed the AO to examine the bank statements to verify if cheques were returned and subsequently re-encashed, which would support the assessee's claim of delayed receipt. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the claim for development expenses with cogent evidence.