ITAT Surat Judgments — June 2022

KAMLABEN THAKORBHAI PATEL,NA

ITA 20/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is an agriculturist and has provided sufficient documentary evidence to support her agricultural income. The AO failed to prove any other source of income for the assessee.

NAZAR IMPEX PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 1(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 133/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimation basis. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

SARITA SABHAJEET YADAV,SILVASSA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL), NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE

ITA 217/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the pandemic and portal issues as valid reasons, and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal on merit. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs M/S. D P VEKARIYA, SURAT

ITA 172/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the assessee had failed to disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment was upheld.

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

ITA 29/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding commission expenses and deemed dividend. For the assessee's appeal on ESI and PF contribution, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the matter to be decided based on the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case.

NAZAR IMPEX PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 1(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 132/SRT/2021[2007-08]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimation basis. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs SHRI FATEHSINH MOHANSINH CHAUHAN, SILVASSA

ITA 198/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reopening of assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' without any new tangible material. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties for the advances.

SHABBIRBHAI SALEHBHAI BADRI,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

ITA 102/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), confirming the DVO's valuation of the land as on 01.04.1981. The assessee was given an opportunity to present objections to the DVO, and the DVO's valuation was based on comparable sales instances.

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

ITA 57/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding commission expenses and deemed dividend. For the assessee's appeal on ESI and PF contribution, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the matter to be decided based on the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case.

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

ITA 58/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal decided that the addition on account of share capital should not be made on a protective basis without establishing the assessee's direct involvement in the alleged accommodation entries. The disallowance of employee's contribution to ESI was also challenged.

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 30/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal decided that the addition on account of share capital should not be made on a protective basis without establishing the assessee's direct involvement in the alleged accommodation entries. The disallowance of employee's contribution to ESI was also challenged.

M/S. KESARI EXPORTS,SURAT vs DCIT,CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 753/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

KESHRI EXPORTS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 889/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

MOHAMMADHUSSAIN SHAIKH,BHARUCH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SURAT

ITA 141/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on mere technicalities, especially when the notification was recent and awareness might have been low. The assessees were directed to file appeals electronically with a prayer for condonation of delay.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs KESHRI EXPORTS, SURAT

ITA 762/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2), SURAT vs THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SURAT

ITA 119/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) as it fulfilled the conditions. The Tribunal affirmed the orders of the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's claims, following its own prior consistent decisions.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NA vs ARI, NAVSARI

ITA 4/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions. The Tribunal noted that the HUF's PAN and bank account were created after the sale, and the sale deed listed an individual as co-owner, not the HUF Karta.

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs HITESH LALJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT

ITA 573/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the Rs. 15,00,000/- withdrawal was properly reflected in the audited books of the firm's jewellery unit and subsequently transferred to the main books. The Tribunal found no evidence of the entries being an afterthought.

CHINTAN ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 3(2)(2), SURAT

ITA 179/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, and acknowledging the department's error in communication. The matter was then restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee gets a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs M/S. KESHRI EXPORTS, SURAT

ITA 916/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs M/S. KESHRI EXPORTS, SURAT

ITA 917/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

MEHRUNISHA M SHAIKH,BHARUCH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SURAT

ITA 140/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on mere technicalities, especially when the notification was recent and awareness might have been low. The assessees were directed to file appeals electronically with a prayer for condonation of delay.

KESHRI EXPORTS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 892/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

KESHRI EXPORTS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 754/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs M/S. KESHRI EXPORTS, SURAT

ITA 918/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs M/S. KESHRI EXPORTS, SURAT

ITA 920/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

KESHRI EXPORTS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 890/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs KESHRI EXPORTS, SURAT

ITA 761/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs M/S. KESHRI EXPORTS, SURAT

ITA 919/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

KESHRI EXPORTS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 893/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2), SURAT vs THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SURAT

ITA 118/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) as it fulfilled the conditions. The Tribunal affirmed the orders of the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's claims, following its own prior consistent decisions.

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

ITA 21/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) as it fulfilled the conditions. The Tribunal affirmed the orders of the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's claims, following its own prior consistent decisions.

KESHRI EXPORTS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 891/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received credible new information and applied his mind to conclude that the purchases claimed were non-genuine. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which sustained additions at 6% of bogus purchases.

SHRI DHARMENDRA HIRUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLURU, SURAT

ITA 140/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal decided to follow the precedent set in the Rekha R. Shukla case, remitting the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to await the outcome of an SLP filed before the Supreme Court concerning the Gujarat High Court's decision in the GSRTC case.

M/S. KANAMIA AQUA FROZEN PVT. LTD.,NA

ITA 75/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The CIT(A) deleted the addition for the NRI director's contribution, finding the source explained through an NRE account. However, the addition for the resident applicant was confirmed due to lack of proper explanation before the Assessing Officer.

SAMEER ENTERPRISES,VAPI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI

ITA 196/SRT/2021[2018-09]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2018-09Remanded

The Tribunal decided to follow the precedent set in the Rekha R. Shukla case, remitting the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to await the outcome of an SLP filed before the Supreme Court concerning the Gujarat High Court's decision in the GSRTC case.

ACIT,CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH vs SHRI MOHMEDSADIK A SHAIKH, ANKALESHWAR

ITA 682/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once books of accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer should make a best judgment assessment. Since the CIT(A) had already made an estimated addition based on turnover, further additions based on rejected books were not permissible.

ABRAMA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED,NA

ITA 178/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order allowing the deduction was not erroneous, as it was based on a reasonable view and supported by jurisdictional High Court decisions. Therefore, the addition made by the CIT(A)/NFAC was deleted.

LILADEVI DOKANIA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.1(2)(3), SURAT

ITA 126/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the deductor's failure to deposit the TDS. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and allow credit for the TDS.

MUKESH A. PATEL,VAPI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI

ITA 706/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not make a reference to the Valuation Officer under the pre-amended Section 55A if the assessee's claimed value, based on a registered valuer's report, was not less than the fair market value. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the value determined by the assessee's registered valuer.

M/S. PARVATI FABRICS LTD.,SURAT vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 1564/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The lender companies were found to be non-existent at their given addresses and operated as entry operators.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs SMT. FALGUNI SANDIPKUMAR NAIK, SURAT

ITA 659/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the verification of loan transactions, including confirmations and bank statements, was sufficient to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

RAJVI CORPORATION,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRLCE-3(2), SURAT

ITA 12/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated or ad hoc basis. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the penalty was deleted.

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,BHARUCH vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE, BHARUCH

ITA 1544/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the creation of a statutory bad debts reserve by the assessee as per the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is a valid provision for bad and doubtful debts. It also found that the issue of statutory debts reserve was not properly considered in earlier proceedings.

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD., BHARUCH

ITA 1529/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the creation of a statutory bad debts reserve by the assessee as per the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is a valid provision for bad and doubtful debts. It also found that the issue of statutory debts reserve was not properly considered in earlier proceedings.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) (1), SURAT vs ANUSHREE SAREES PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 1682/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the issue was covered by the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) 2016 filed by the director of the company, which was accepted by the Principal CIT and Assessing Officer.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) (1), SURAT vs ANUSHREE SAREES PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 1680/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the issue was covered by the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) 2016 filed by the director of the company, which was accepted by the Principal CIT and Assessing Officer.

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD., BHARUCH

ITA 1531/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the creation of a statutory bad debts reserve by the assessee as per the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is a valid provision for bad and doubtful debts. It also found that the issue of statutory debts reserve was not properly considered in earlier proceedings.

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,BHARUCH vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE, BHARUCH

ITA 1543/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the creation of a statutory bad debts reserve by the assessee as per the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is a valid provision for bad and doubtful debts. It also found that the issue of statutory debts reserve was not properly considered in earlier proceedings.

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,BHARUCH vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

ITA 362/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the creation of a statutory bad debts reserve by the assessee as per the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is a valid provision for bad and doubtful debts. It also found that the issue of statutory debts reserve was not properly considered in earlier proceedings.