ITAT Raipur Judgments — September 2023

UNNATI JAN KALYAAN SHIKSHAN SAMITI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 278/RPR/2023[NA]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registered email ID was missing in the notices, their claim of non-receipt could not be discarded. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

UNNATI JAN KALYAAN SHIKSHAN SAMITI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 279/RPR/2023[NA]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registered email ID was missing in the notices, their claim of non-receipt could not be discarded. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

BHAWNA BAFNA, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

ITA 250/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO. The case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

M/S SWASTIK ESTATE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 178/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding no infirmity in it. Since the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice, the Pr. CIT rightly set aside the assessment order for re-adjudication by the AO after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal held that a reassessment order does not wipe out the original assessment order. The CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine based on this incorrect premise.

DCIT, BHILAI, BHILAI vs BHILAI JAYPEE CEMENT LIMITED, DURG

ITA 258/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was that the same appeal had been filed twice.

SAKSHAM,BILASPUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

ITA 102/RPR/2020[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal. Such orders are administrative in nature and not listed under Section 253 for appeal.

SHRISHTI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,KORBA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

ITA 101/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal. Such orders are administrative in nature and not listed under Section 253 for appeal.

SHRISHTI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,KORBA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

ITA 100/RPR/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal. Such orders are administrative in nature and not listed under Section 253 for appeal.

BLOCK RESOURCES CENTRE RAJIV GSANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,DHAMDHA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

ITA 35/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal accepted additional evidence submitted by the assessee which was not available before the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after verification of the new evidence.

BLOCK RESOURCES COORDINATOR RAJIV GANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,PATAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

ITA 34/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. This was done to allow the AO to verify and examine additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was not available before the lower authorities.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BILASPUR vs M/S JAGANNATHDAS HARICHANDMAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, RAIGARH

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 as the primary information was already available and no new facts were brought on record. The reassessment was based on a retracted statement without supporting evidence, making the addition unsustainable in law.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR vs AVIRAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,, RAIPUR

ITA 13/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had considered the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, the proviso to Section 68 requiring examination of the nature and source of the investment (source of source) was not adequately addressed. The provided balance sheet of ALV Enterprises was insufficient to verify the nature of transactions.

BLOCK RESOURCES COORDINATOR RAJIV GANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,PATAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

ITA 33/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal accepted additional evidence submitted by the assessee which was not available before the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after verification of the new evidence.

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR

ITA 168/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed as withdrawn.

AARTI SPONGE AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 70/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not attracted if no exempt income is earned. Regarding social welfare expenses, it was found to be incidental to business and justified by commercial expediency, but required verification.

M/S ARIHANT ASSOCIATIONS, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 75/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed opening cash in hand of Rs. 52.47 lacs in the preceding year, which was accepted by the department. The Tribunal found no justification in the AO's rejection of the explanation that the cash deposits were sourced from this opening balance, despite the time gap.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI vs M/S AKRITI INFRASTRUCTURE , BHILAI

ITA 60/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in part. Regarding the addition under Section 69C, the Tribunal sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 86,10,000/-. The AO had initially made an addition of Rs. 3,36,23,500/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its outstanding liabilities towards sellers by making cash payments, and this expenditure was sourced from unexplained sources, thus falling under Section 69C. However, the Tribunal vacated the addition of Rs. 1,54,83,500/- which was based on the AO's view of 'on-money' payments (difference between stamp duty value and agreement value), as this aspect was already dealt with. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3), the Tribunal vacated the entire disallowance of Rs. 3,19,33,500/-. The Tribunal reasoned that the addition towards payment made out of unaccounted income (Rs. 86,10,000/-) had already been sustained under Section 69C, and a separate disallowance under Section 40A(3) for the same amount would result in double addition. The ground concerning the admission of additional evidence was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objections as academic.

M/S ADIM JATI SEVA SAHKARI SAMITI, MARYADIT, KORBA,KORBA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, KORBA, KORBA

ITA 50/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had not dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution but had decided it on merits due to lack of evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal.

KUNJ BIHARI DAWA DUKAN, AMBIKAPUR,SURGUJA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 122/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not respond to the show-cause notice issued by the PCIT. Since the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment with an opportunity to the assessee, no prejudice was caused. Therefore, the PCIT's order was sustained.

ACIT (CENTRAL), BILASPUR vs M/S. BARBARIK PROJECT LTD., SURAJPUR

ITA 70/RPR/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) was invalid due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). Consequently, any additions made based on this invalid assessment cannot be sustained.

SMT. LAXMI DEVI CHANDWANI, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 99/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B for not getting accounts audited is not attracted when no books of accounts were maintained by the assessee. The AO's action was considered impractical as audit is impossible without maintained accounts.

HIRA INFRA-TEK LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 77/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication.

VIKAS SHARMA, DURG,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 255/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's adjournment request and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

DURGA PRASAD CHAWARE, DURG,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 271/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had failed to consider the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication after considering the evidence and providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

SABITA AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 110/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had valid jurisdiction and that the AO's assessment was indeed erroneous due to a lack of proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors. The PCIT's order was upheld.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI vs SHRI SANDEEP SURENDRAN NAIR, BHILAI

ITA 100/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench decision and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling on VAT. The Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services was found not applicable to the present case concerning service tax.

PINKY SACHDEV,RAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 52/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity by the AO and that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs M/S TRIPCO SERVICES PVT. LTD., , RAIPUR

ITA 110/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal, sustaining some additions while vacating others. The decision hinged on whether the assessee had sufficiently substantiated the source and nature of the share application money received from various companies.

SMT. DIPALBEN MANISH PATEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 215/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default in the show cause notice, thus violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

BILASPUR INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 218/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider crucial documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after considering all the evidence.

ROSHAN LAL AGRAWAL,KORBA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-3, KORBA (C.G.)

ITA 240/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to determine the profit element of the bogus purchases. The addition would be restricted to the profit the assessee would have made by procuring goods at a discounted rate, provided certain conditions regarding the change of party names, accounting in books, and reconciliation of closing stock are met.

RAHUL SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 245/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's callous and lackadaisical approach in not participating in proceedings before lower authorities justified the ex-parte orders. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was upheld.

TIKAMCHAND RATHI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 235/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 237/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the delay of 191 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained by bonafide reasons. The assessee's conduct showed negligence and disregard for the legal process.

TECHNOBLAST MINING CORPORATION,RAIGARH vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 133/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the heavy vehicles were used for hire, as the MDO contract was a composite one. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 and directing a fresh assessment.

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 238/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the delay of 191 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained by bonafide reasons. The assessee's conduct showed negligence and disregard for the legal process.

JAISHRI KESHARWANI, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

ITA 225/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the assessee's adjournment application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

VAKRANGEE FOUNDATION, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 196/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a charitable institution running a school, and therefore, the provisions of Section 44AB, which apply to persons carrying on business, are not applicable. The penalty levied under Section 271B was consequently deleted.

AIMS MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 224/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the issue had been resolved by the condonation order and subsequent rectification. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 144/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 1993-94Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was validly imposed and was not barred by limitation. The assessee's failure to intimate change of address was considered a deliberate act, and the argument of violation of natural justice was rejected.

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 146/RPR/2023[1994-95]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 1994-95Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was validly imposed and was not barred by limitation. The assessee's failure to intimate change of address was considered a reason for not providing an opportunity to be heard, and the penalty was upheld.

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 148/RPR/2023[1995-96]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 1995-96Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was not barred by limitation, as the penalty order was passed within the prescribed time limit following the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal also found that the assessee could not take advantage of his own failure to intimate the change of address to claim a violation of natural justice.

JAIMEET SAWAIRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 175/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the liability to deduct TDS under Section 194-IA arises when the consideration for a single immovable property exceeds Rs. 50,00,000. Since the consideration for each flat was below this threshold, there was no liability to deduct tax at source.

ABHINANDAN KEDIA, JANJGIR-CHAMPA,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 174/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to satisfy the twin conditions required under Section 263: that the AO's order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The PCIT's own observations indicated prima facie satisfaction with the assessee's evidence, rendering the revision order bad in law.