ITAT Surat Judgments — June 2019

GIRISH KANTILAL ZAVERI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SURAT

ITA 660/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the Assessing Officer failed to record a specific finding as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works.

SHRI SALAHUDDIN H. BAIG,BHARUCH vs THE ACIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH

ITA 500/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the denial of a claim for deduction under Section 54F, when the transaction was reported and the claim was disclosed, does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions stating that mere denial of a legal claim cannot be the basis for such penalty.

SHRI ASHOK RAMANLAL PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., SURAT

ITA 442/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings were quashed, the basis for the penalty levy did not survive. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were set aside and the penalty was directed to be deleted.

NIKUNJKUMAR D. MODI HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

ITA 549/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, effective from July 1, 2012, were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO as the assessee's declared value was not considered less than the fair market value.

PARTHKUMAR KAUSHIKBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs ITO, WARD2(3)(3), SURAT

ITA 116/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee eventually complied with the notices with the help of a CA and the returned income was accepted, there was no deliberate avoidance or contumacious conduct warranting a penalty. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

M/S. MERIDIAN INFRATEL PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

ITA 131/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have kept the appeal pending upon being informed of the assessee's intention to avail the Dispute Resolution Scheme. The CIT(A) ought to have sought a report on the status of the declarations before deciding the appeal.

TRUPTI PIYUSH SHAH,SURAT vs DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 187/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were not sustainable in law because the AO failed to provide a specific finding as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The use of 'and/or' in the penalty order was considered fatal.

SHREE DHANJI J. RAKHOLIYA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 30/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's penalty order lacked clarity and did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This ambiguity, citing the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works, renders the penalty unsustainable.

SANMUKHLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, SURAT

ITA 550/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, effective from July 1, 2012, were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO as the assessee's declared value was not considered less than the fair market value.

NITIN KUMAR GAMANLAL MODI HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

ITA 551/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, effective from July 1, 2012, were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO as the assessee's declared value was not considered less than the fair market value.

VIJAYKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

ITA 545/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, effective from July 1, 2012, were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO as the assessee's declared value was not considered less than the fair market value.

MADHUBEN DILIPBHAI MODI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

ITA 547/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, effective from July 1, 2012, were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO as the assessee's declared value was not considered less than the fair market value.

ANILKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

ITA 548/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, effective from July 1, 2012, were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO as the assessee's declared value was not considered less than the fair market value.

JIGNESHKUMAR S. MODI HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

ITA 544/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, effective from July 1, 2012, were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO as the assessee's declared value was not considered less than the fair market value.

TRUPTI PIYUSH SHAH,SURAT vs DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 186/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were not sustainable in law because the AO failed to provide a specific finding as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The use of 'and/or' in the penalty order was considered fatal.

GAMANLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

ITA 546/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, effective from July 1, 2012, were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO as the assessee's declared value was not considered less than the fair market value.

HITESHKUMAR VALJIBHAI KYADA,SURAT vs ITO WARD-3(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 117/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not warranted as the assessee, after initial non-compliance, had subsequently complied with the notice with the help of a CA. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) accepting the returned income, indicating no deliberate avoidance.