ITAT Surat Judgments — November 2023

SHRI RAVJIBHAI B DHAMELIYA,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 124/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

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.

ME AND MUMMY HOSPITAL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.3, SURAT

ITA 355/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on presumption and lacked proper substantiation, especially considering similar additions for IPD patients were deleted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's arguments regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence.

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

ITA 122/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

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.

THAKORBHAI & COMPANY,NA vs ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 641/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on estimation by the Assessing Officer and modified by the CIT(A). Following jurisdictional High Court precedent, it was decided that no penalty is leviable on additions made on an estimated basis.

VIJAY RAMSINGH GOYAL,SURAT vs I.T.O., WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT., SURAT

ITA 591/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the source of investment in property through bank loan and sale of agricultural land. Similarly, the cash deposits were considered partly explained by the sale of agricultural land and past savings from business.

ME AND MUMMY HOSPITAL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.3, SURAT

ITA 365/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on presumption and lacked proper substantiation, especially considering similar additions for IPD patients were deleted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's arguments regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence.

GANGESHWAR SEVA MANDAL CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 589/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: Heard3 Nov 2023AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee pursuing an alternative remedy. It then restored both applications to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing an opportunity for the assessee to explain the name mismatch and submit details about its objects and activities.

GANGESHWAR SEVA MANDAL CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 588/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: Heard3 Nov 2023AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee pursuing an alternative remedy. It then restored both applications to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing an opportunity for the assessee to explain the name mismatch and submit details about its objects and activities.

BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 585/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: Heard1 Nov 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing parity with other cases where similar delays were accepted and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

KAVIISH FOCUS PIPES PVT. LTD,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 9/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: Heard1 Nov 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence. This was due to the family's personal tragedy and the need to uphold principles of natural justice.

BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 584/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: Heard1 Nov 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing parity with other cases where similar delays were accepted and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

KAVISH FOCUS PIPES PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS GSPL SEAMLESS PIPES PVT. LTD),SURAT vs ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 48/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: Heard1 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence. This was due to the family's personal tragedy and the need to uphold principles of natural justice.