ITAT Surat Judgments — November 2023

PARVATIBEN BHAGUBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 497/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and that the assessee deserved another opportunity to contest the additions on merit. The matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer.

PRITESH PANKAJBHAI SIDHPURIA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 505/SRT/2023[22011-12]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not valid, as mere bank deposits do not automatically constitute undisclosed income. Consequently, the subsequent action initiated upon reopening was considered void ab initio.

M/S HALLMARK TOUR,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 627/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence regarding the source of the foreign currency. A mere claim that the amount was included in a PMGKY disclosure was insufficient to discharge the onus of proof.

SHRI HARESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL MAHADEVWALA HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's explanation was not entirely cogent, the Assessing Officer had not brought any material to disprove the availability of the withdrawn cash. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the assessee the benefit of doubt for 50% of the cash deposit.

RAJESHBHAI D. DUNGARANI (HUF),SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(3), SURAT

ITA 561/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing sufficient evidence of genuine share transactions through a recognized broker and stock exchange. The revenue failed to bring any adverse material on record to disprove the assessee's evidence.

NA vs ARI SURAT ATHTHAVISI MODH CHATURVEDI BRAHMIN GHYATI SAMAST ,NAVSARIVS.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 619/SRT/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee applied for final approval within a week of receiving provisional approval, and since it was their first application for 80G approval, the delay argument was not applicable. The CIT(E) had not examined other conditions for approval.

DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI KACHCHADIA,VAPI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that merely falling within an urban development area or an area notified for industrial development does not automatically bring the land within municipal limits. Based on evidence, the land was considered agricultural and not a capital asset, making the surplus exempt.

DILIP BHIKHUBHAI CHAUHAN,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT

ITA 509/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case on merits. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing opportunity and the assessee was cautioned to be more vigilant.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),SURAT, MAJURA GATE,SURAT vs SHREE ARADHNA URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, VARACHHA ROAD

ITA 630/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that cooperative banks are primarily cooperative societies and interest earned on deposits with them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting this view.

RANAJITBHAI BALVANTBHAI PATEL,OLPAD vs ITO - WARD 2(2)(4), MAJURA GATE

ITA 646/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee's consistent stand was that they had no taxable income and thus no advance tax was payable. Citing a precedent where an appeal was admitted despite non-payment of advance tax due to losses, the Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A).

NOBAL JEWELS PVT LTD ,SURAT vs ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

ITA 468/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the addition on sales at a specific rate (0.05%) for the assessee and other similar assessees, rather than on both purchase and sales.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT, SURAT vs NOBAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 518/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the addition on sales at a specific rate (0.05%) for the assessee and other similar assessees, rather than on both purchase and sales.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs TANMAN JEWELS PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 521/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the addition on sales at a specific rate (0.05%) for the assessee and other similar assessees, rather than on both purchase and sales.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs SAFFRON GEMS PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 512/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the addition on sales at a specific rate (0.05%) for the assessee and other similar assessees, rather than on both purchase and sales.

TANMAN JEWELS PVT LTD,SURAT vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 446/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the addition on sales at a specific rate (0.05%) for the assessee and other similar assessees, rather than on both purchase and sales.

SAFFRON GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 444/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the addition on sales at a specific rate (0.05%) for the assessee and other similar assessees, rather than on both purchase and sales.

ANTIQUE EXIM PVT. LTD, SURAT,SURAT vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT

ITA 445/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the addition on sales at a specific rate (0.05%) for the assessee and other similar assessees, rather than on both purchase and sales.

ULTIMATE SPORTS & EDUCATION TRUST,SURAT vs CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 644/SRT/2023[2023-24]Status: Heard23 Nov 2023AY 2023-24Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs PANKAJ KHANDELWALA, SURAT

ITA 83/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Heard23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 1% of the total gross receipts, considering the documents related to brokerage business and the absence of evidence of other investments. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion.

HARMONY YARNS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the AO had considered the issues, and the PCIT cannot substitute his opinion for the AO's. However, the issue of PF contribution was decided against the assessee based on a Supreme Court judgment.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT, SURAT vs ANTIQUE EXIM PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 525/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the addition on sales at a specific rate (0.05%) for the assessee and other similar assessees, rather than on both purchase and sales.

SHREE OM SAI DEVELOPERS,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 586/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.

HASUMATIBEN JAGDISHBHAI PATEL, ,SURAT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

ITA 322/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order on issues not covered by the limited scrutiny and without providing an opportunity to be heard on new issues. The loan processing charges were considered revenue expenditure.

SHRI PRABHUBHAI DULLABHBHAI PATEL L/R VIRAL PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(8), SURAT

ITA 562/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed on a deceased person, which is legally invalid. The CIT(A) erred in upholding such an order.

HITESH ISHWARLAL THAKAR,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

ITA 605/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the ex parte order by the NFAC/CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC/CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 633/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Nov 2023AY 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 assessment was ultimately completed under Section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 634/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Heard21 Nov 2023AY 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 assessment was ultimately completed under Section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 636/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Nov 2023AY 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 assessment was ultimately completed under Section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 631/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Heard21 Nov 2023AY 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 assessment was ultimately completed under Section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 632/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: Heard21 Nov 2023AY 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 assessment was ultimately completed under Section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 635/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Heard21 Nov 2023AY 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 assessment was ultimately completed under Section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, AHMEDABAD

ITA 222/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: Heard21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before the proper jurisdictional Bench (Ahmedabad) and to seek exclusion of time spent before the Surat Bench under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

VIRAJ SHIRISHKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 637/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Heard21 Nov 2023AY 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 assessment was ultimately completed under Section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

VINAY BHATEJA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 598/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT vs AALIDHAARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

ITA 288/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. It directed a specific disallowance under Section 14A, which included the assessee's suo motu disallowance, direct expenses, and a portion of director's remuneration, finding the AO's disallowance excessive. The appeal regarding Section 80G was dismissed.

BHARATKUMAR R SONI,NA vs ARIVS.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

ITA 162/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a fair and proper opportunity of being heard, as the show cause notice was received belatedly. Therefore, the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 was set aside.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs M/S AALIDHAR TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 226/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. It directed a specific disallowance under Section 14A, which included the assessee's suo motu disallowance, direct expenses, and a portion of director's remuneration, finding the AO's disallowance excessive. The appeal regarding Section 80G was dismissed.

S J P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 430/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea regarding the windmill being part of the block of assets and ready for use was raised for the first time. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to examine the facts and pass a fresh order.

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 519/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer relied on third-party information without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the relevant person and without proving that the lender company was indeed controlled by the alleged entry provider. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had furnished complete details of the lender and that the loan was repaid in a subsequent year.

NILESHKUMAR CHHAGANBHAI VASOYA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(8), SURAT

ITA 64/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Heard15 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons of substantial justice and principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to present evidence and explanations for the cash deposits.

SHYAM VILAS PATIL,VAPI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 642/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Heard14 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case on merit. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order.

HARISHBHAI G. CHOVATIYA,SARTHANA, SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 486/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash-in-hand through bank withdrawals, which were not disputed. The Tribunal found no restriction on keeping cash at home and no adverse material to suggest the cash was used for unaccounted expenses or investments.

HASMUKHBHAI KADVABHAI RAMANI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 570/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a part of the compensation and not taxable. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow only 50% relief was without basis.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs VALENCIA CORPORATION, SURAT

ITA 257/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Nov 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition under Section 41(1) as the AO failed to bring adverse material or conduct independent investigation to prove cessation of liability. Similarly, the addition under Section 68 was deleted as the assessee discharged its onus by furnishing partner's details and creditworthiness evidence.

DINESH NARANBHAI KOSHIYA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, , SURAT

ITA 463/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed8 Nov 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was given liberty to furnish complete details and evidence, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

DINESH NARANBHAI KOSHIYA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER , SURAT

ITA 464/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed8 Nov 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was given liberty to furnish complete details and evidence, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

KRISHNA HIREN GUJARATI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 3(2)(4), SURAT

ITA 188/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the AO had accepted an available cash balance of Rs. 6.00 lacs. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 2.90 lacs. The Tribunal also held that the amended Section 115BBE is not retrospective.

ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI vs M/S. NORTHERN INDIA ALCORUY SYSTEMS, VAPI

ITA 232/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the inflated sales and unconfirmed purchases, stating that the AO failed to establish non-genuine purchases.

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,, SURAT

ITA 304/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind to the material received. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as being ab initio void.

SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1(1), SURAT

ITA 239/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind to the material received. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as being ab initio void.