ITAT Surat Judgments — May 2023

GTPL RAJWADI NETWORK PVT. LTD.,BAMROLI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-1(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 95/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Impex Fees paid to the Surat Municipal Corporation is allowable as a business expense and is not penal in nature. Therefore, penalty should not be levied for a technical or inadvertent error.

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 98/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue of late payment of employee contributions to PF/ESIC is squarely covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on interest as the assessee failed to prove payee included the amount in their income. The belated service tax payment was also disallowed due to lack of evidence.

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 97/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue of late payment of employee contributions to PF/ESIC is squarely covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on interest as the assessee failed to prove payee included the amount in their income. The belated service tax payment was also disallowed due to lack of evidence.

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PRIVATE LIMITED,DAMAN & DIU vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

ITA 163/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry and considered the relevant documents before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs M/S VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., , VAPI

ITA 152/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's own case, affirming the principle of mutuality. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify certain facts regarding services to non-members as per the prior order.

THE KOSAMBA MERCANTILE CO-OP. BANK LTD.,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BARDOLI

ITA 201/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead its case effectively before the Assessing Officer and that the assessment was a best judgment assessment, not on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 99/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue of late payment of employee contributions to PF/ESIC is squarely covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on interest as the assessee failed to prove payee included the amount in their income. The belated service tax payment was also disallowed due to lack of evidence.

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 100/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the issue of late payment of employee contributions to PF/ESIC is squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS and belated service tax payments due to lack of evidence.

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 101/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue of late payment of employee contributions to PF/ESIC is squarely covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on interest as the assessee failed to prove payee included the amount in their income. The belated service tax payment was also disallowed due to lack of evidence.

SHREE ABHISHEK BIPINBHAI NAIK,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 12/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without properly examining the business activities or calling for a remand report. The bank statements showed immediate transfer of deposits to the companies, indicating business transactions, and the deposits were not abnormal compared to earlier periods.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs M/S VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., , VAPI

ITA 153/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's own case, affirming the principle of mutuality. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify certain facts regarding services to non-members before passing an order.

SUN ENTERPRISES,,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1)/ DY.CIT CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE (CPC), SURAT/BENGALURU

ITA 162/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The tribunal disallowed the employee's contribution to PF & ESIC based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. However, it directed the AO to examine the payment date for the employer's contribution and allow it if paid before the due date of filing the return.

SHRI VITHALBHAI KADVABHAI KORAT,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 205/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable on additions based on estimation, as it is settled law. Furthermore, since the assessee voluntarily offered the interest expenditure for taxation, penalty was not warranted on that addition either.

UMADEVI SHIVNARAYAN GARG,SURAT vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 68/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 as the issue of addition was already pending before the CIT(A). The PCIT's action was considered an attempt to enhance the assessment, which is the prerogative of the appellate authority.

DY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2, SURAT vs M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO., SURAT

ITA 202/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 May 2023AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash found at Varachha and Alkapuri branches, which was offered to tax, should be deleted from the addition. For cash found at Lahripura and Surat branches, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify and grant relief, following a Gujarat High Court precedent.

ARMAAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR. 1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 286/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 May 2023AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the timely payment of PF/ESI contributions by the assessee. If payments were made within the due dates as per the relevant statutes, relief should be granted.

M/S RAJESH FILAMENTS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 185/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Heard30 May 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest expenses on unsecured loans to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was based on a similar issue in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year which was also restored.

RUPA MILTON DEY,SURAT vs ITO WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 293/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Heard30 May 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the sufficient and reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the cash credit issue.

AKLAVYA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 93/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 May 2023AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for PF and ESIC amounts deposited on or before the due date, the deduction is allowable. However, for amounts deposited after the extended due date, the deduction is disallowed.

M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO.,,SURAT vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 184/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 May 2023AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash found at Varachha and Alkapuri branches, which was offered to tax, should be deleted from the addition. For cash found at Lahripura and Surat branches, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify and grant relief, following a Gujarat High Court precedent.

SHRI BHAVESH BHUVA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 235/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 May 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on erroneous reasons, specifically the incorrect premise that the assessee had not filed a return of income. Since the basis for reopening was factually wrong, all subsequent actions were void-ab-initio.

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs M/S. SWASTIK OIL COMPANY, SURAT

ITA 120/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 May 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on documents found at a third party's premises and a statement from a person with whom the assessee denied any dealings. The Tribunal found no concrete evidence directly linking the impounded documents or the alleged 'on-money' payments to the assessee.

VIJAY HIRALAL RAJPUT,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(9) OLD/ 3(2)(6) NEW, SURAT

ITA 96/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 May 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of commission at 1.5% as reasonable. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify and reduce the total turnover if there was duplication of entries between bank accounts.

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: Disposed26 May 2023AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as there was no corroborating evidence like bills or investments found. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

SHRI RADHEYSHYAM BISANI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 288/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 May 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that income from capital gains and short-term capital gains from share transactions does not constitute business turnover for the purpose of Section 44AB. Therefore, the assessee was not required to get their books audited, and no penalty under Section 271B was leviable.

VINAYLAL SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

ITA 287/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 May 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the case. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to contest the issue on merit.

MATHURBHAI P. VIRADIYA HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1)(5), SURAT

ITA 328/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged that individuals generally keep some cash at hand. While upholding the bulk of the addition, it granted a partial relief of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the assessee, reducing the unexplained income.

SHRI MAJID AJIT SHAIKH,SILVASSA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA

ITA 11/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that once the profit is estimated on the total turnover, no further addition can be made for trade liabilities. The Tribunal directed that profit at 6% should be considered on the Rs. 4.90 lakh transaction as well.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CC-4, SURAT vs NARESH BHIKHABHAI SAVALIYA, SURAT

ITA 283/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that income from a partnership firm, especially when it has offered undisclosed income for taxation before the Settlement Commission, should be taxed in the hands of the firm and not its individual partners. The addition made by the AO was therefore not sustainable.

KSHITIJ MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 125/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness and bona fide of the commission expenses. The commission was paid through banking channels, TDS was deducted, and the recipient parties had shown the income in their accounts. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

ITA 1442/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors. The Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the credits as unexplained.

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LTD.,,SURAT vs PR. COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

ITA 161/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

MICRO SYSTEMS,ANKLESHWAR vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 37/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to refute or discredit the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, such as invoices and bank statements, without providing cogent reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the differential balances pertained to opening balances from previous years and were not relevant to the current assessment year.

THE GOVERNMENT E CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,BHARUCH vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VADODARA-1, VADODARA

ITA 126/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and taken a possible view in allowing the deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal found that the conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met, especially considering the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

ITA 1443/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors. The Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the credits as unexplained.

M/S. SHHLOK TRITON ASSOCIATES,SURAT vs PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 220/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not provide the assessee with sufficient opportunity to present evidence and that the direction to reframe the entire assessment was not in line with the specific issue raised. Therefore, the PCIT's order violated the principles of natural justice.

SHRI RAJENDRABHAI RAMANLAL DESAI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

ITA 293/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE, increasing the tax rate, was not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question. The addition should be taxed at normal rates.

SHRI SUDIN MAHADEV SANGODKAR,GOA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

ITA 207/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the actual delay and the circumstances of the assessee. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after considering the condonation of delay application.

MUKESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs CIT APPEALS, DELHI

ITA 361/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party document without independent investigation or corroborative evidence. The Assessing Officer failed to examine the lawyer or the purchasers, and the assessee denied any connection to the document.

BHARATKUMAR L. TEJANI,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 540/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the nature of the land at the time of transfer is crucial for Section 54B. It also noted that the assessee's claim of agricultural activities was not sufficiently supported by documentary evidence, and the timing of the land's conversion to non-agricultural use was questionable.

ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT vs BHARATKUMAR LALJIBHAI TEJANI, SURAT

ITA 488/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the nature of the land at the time of transfer is crucial for Section 54B. It also noted that the assessee's claim of agricultural activities was not sufficiently supported by documentary evidence, and the timing of the land's conversion to non-agricultural use was questionable.

SHRI MURLI FATANDAS SAWLANI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), SURAT

ITA 215/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's lack of knowledge. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without proper adjudication on merits, violating principles of natural justice.

ARSHADHUSSAIN GULAMABBAS SHAIKH,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 116/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: Heard16 May 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

LALITABEN RAMESHCHANDRA KAMLI,DAMAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

ITA 208/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ARSHADHUSSAIN GULAMABBAS SHAIKH,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 117/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: Heard16 May 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

DIPAKKUMAR ASHVINBHAI BHENSDADIA,NA vs ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

ITA 76/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance as the notices were sent to an old email address after the assessee had intimated a change of address. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

BHARUCH FOREX PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), AHMEDABAD

ITA 444/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the penalty imposed on the assessee. The assessee's claim of filing SFT on the e-filing portal without providing supporting evidence was not accepted.

BHARUCH FOREX PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), AHMEDABAD

ITA 443/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the penalty imposed on the assessee. The assessee's claim of filing SFT on the e-filing portal without providing supporting evidence was not accepted.

DAKSHABEN SHAILESH DHAMELIYA,SURAT vs THE PCIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 111/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries and gathered evidence regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the assessee's activities. The PCIT's revisionary order was considered erroneous as the Assessing Officer's assessment was not found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

BHIKHABHAI RAJABHAI DHAMANIYA,SURAT vs THE PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT

ITA 110/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries and gathered evidence regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the assessee's activities. The PCIT's revisionary order was considered erroneous as the Assessing Officer's assessment was not found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.