ITAT Surat Judgments — September 2022

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 467/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the lenders admitted in cross-examination that the loans were accommodation entries and not genuine transactions. Therefore, the addition of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest expenses were upheld.

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 465/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the lenders admitted in cross-examination that the loans were accommodation entries and not genuine transactions. Therefore, the addition of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest expenses were upheld.

JAYANTILAL HIRABHAI PATAL,SURAT vs ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

ITA 771/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person are void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) affirming it were quashed.

SHRI HITESH HIMMATLAL SAVANI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

ITA 347/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. It noted that the Income Tax Settlement Commission had also found no evidence connecting the assessee to the seized material except for third-party statements, which were not fully accepted.

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 468/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the lenders admitted in cross-examination that the loans were accommodation entries and not genuine transactions. Therefore, the addition of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest expenses were upheld.

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 466/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the lenders admitted in cross-examination that the loans were accommodation entries and not genuine transactions. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 and the disallowance of interest were upheld.

BHARATKUMAR GANPATRAM VYAS,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA

ITA 186/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that taxing the entire deposit was not justified as the bank account was used for unreported business transactions. It directed the Assessing Officer to consider only 8% of the total deposit as profit from such activities.

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

ITA 38/SRT/2017[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the unabsorbed depreciation available on April 1, 2002, is to be governed by the amended Section 32(2) and can be carried forward and set off without any time limit. Consequently, the disallowance of set-off of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was allowed.

VIPIN INDRAMALJI JARIWALA,SURAT vs DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,SURAT, SURAT

ITA 85/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit and that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

M/S. UNITED SALT WORKS,BHARUCH vs ITO, WARD 1(3), BHARUCH

ITA 208/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that payments made to a State Government company, which is considered an instrumentality of the government, fall under the exception of Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified.

MUKESHBHAI DINESHBHAI SHAH,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD3(2)(5), SURAT

ITA 160/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits and that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 154/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

ITA 159/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was passed on merits under Section 143(3) after the assessee eventually complied, the penalty for non-compliance was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was not in accordance with the statutory provisions.

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

ITA 156/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was passed on merits under Section 143(3) after the assessee eventually complied, the penalty for non-compliance was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was not in accordance with the statutory provisions.

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

ITA 155/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was passed on merits under Section 143(3) after the assessee eventually complied, the penalty for non-compliance was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was not in accordance with the statutory provisions.

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

ITA 158/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was passed on merits under Section 143(3) after the assessee eventually complied, the penalty for non-compliance was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was not in accordance with the statutory provisions.

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

ITA 157/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was passed on merits under Section 143(3) after the assessee eventually complied, the penalty for non-compliance was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was not in accordance with the statutory provisions.

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 148/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 149/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 150/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 151/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 152/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 153/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Heard27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 139/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Assessing Officer's own granting of adjournments waived the cause of action for penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 138/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Assessing Officer's own granting of adjournments waived the cause of action for penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 137/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Assessing Officer's own granting of adjournments waived the cause of action for penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 135/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Assessing Officer's own granting of adjournments waived the cause of action for penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 136/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Assessing Officer's own granting of adjournments waived the cause of action for penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH vs GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD., BHARUCH

ITA 3273/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of interest-free credit as Section 40A(2)(b) was not applicable and that the repair and maintenance expenses were revenue in nature as the AO failed to provide evidence that the replaced items were independent machines.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH vs GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD., BHARUCH

ITA 2519/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of interest-free credit as Section 40A(2)(b) was not applicable and that the repair and maintenance expenses were revenue in nature as the AO failed to provide evidence that the replaced items were independent machines.

GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.,BHARUCH vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH

ITA 3053/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of interest-free credit as Section 40A(2)(b) was not applicable and that the repair and maintenance expenses were revenue in nature as the AO failed to provide evidence that the replaced items were independent machines.

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 134/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Assessing Officer's own granting of adjournments waived the cause of action for penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs SHRI ABHISHEK L. JAIN, SURAT

ITA 344/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s restriction of addition to 5% was on the lower side, especially given the assessee's negligible net profit. The Tribunal increased the disallowance to 6% of the aggregate disputed purchases.

SANJAY MAHADEV KHOPKAR,THANE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(2), SURAT

ITA 91/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and grant credit for TDS reflected in the salary slip, irrespective of whether it's in Form 26AS, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

SHRI PARESH K. SORATHIYA,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(3), SURAT

ITA 342/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technical considerations. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had acted under different provisions of Section 271(1)(c) without a clear finding, rendering the penalty order unsustainable.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(4), SURAT vs M/S. MANSI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 111/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance on business expenses, deeming the Assessing Officer's disallowance to be ad-hoc.

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

ITA 142/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Heard15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the Assessing Officer had granted adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying that earlier defaults were waived.

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

ITA 143/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Heard15 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the Assessing Officer had granted adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying that earlier defaults were waived.

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

ITA 141/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Heard15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the Assessing Officer had granted adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying that earlier defaults were waived.

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

ITA 145/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Heard15 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the Assessing Officer had granted adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying that earlier defaults were waived.

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 147/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard15 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the Assessing Officer had granted adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying that earlier defaults were waived.

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 140/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard15 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Assessing Officer's own granting of adjournments waived the cause of action for penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

ITA 146/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Heard15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the Assessing Officer had granted adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying that earlier defaults were waived.

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

ITA 144/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Heard15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the Assessing Officer had granted adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying that earlier defaults were waived.

SANJIVKUMAR A. SHAH,VALSAD vs I. T. OFFICE, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD

ITA 187/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded his dissatisfaction regarding the assessee's claim that no expenditure was incurred for exempt income. The disallowance was made in accordance with the existing provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii), and the assessee did not dispute the investment figures.

THE WAGRA TALUKA CO. OPERATIVE MARKETING & PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.,BHARUCH vs ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

ITA 199/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal found the assessee's adopted rate of Rs. 25.69 per square meter to be reasonable and acceptable, considering the comparable sale instances. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee became academic.

SHAUKATALI TAJUMAL HUSAIN,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-3(2)(5), SURAT

ITA 242/SRT/2021[2009-10]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without taking steps for alternative service and without adjudicating the grounds on merit. Consequently, the quantum assessment and penalty appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

ITA 176/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the commission paid to directors was allowable, following the principle of consistency and previous judgments. Regarding cash credits, the Tribunal found that the advances were duly adjusted against sales in subsequent years and thus not unexplained.

SHAUKATALI TAJUMAL HUSSAIN,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 3(2)(5), SURAT

ITA 215/SRT/2021[2009-10]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without taking steps for alternative service and without adjudicating the grounds on merit. Consequently, the quantum assessment and penalty appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

ITA 175/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the commission paid to directors was allowable, following the principle of consistency and previous judgments. Regarding cash credits, the Tribunal found that the advances were duly adjusted against sales in subsequent years and thus not unexplained.