ITAT Surat Judgments — December 2023

SHILPABEN NILESHBHAI GAMI,BARDOLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1)(5), SURAT

ITA 372/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the delay of 2208 days was not sufficiently explained and that the assessee had not demonstrated a bona fide reason for the significant delay. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment due to bogus purchases, justifying the reopening of the assessment. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.

BHANUBEN RAJESHBHAI RATHOD,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(6), SURAT

ITA 650/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) order was passed without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.

GHANSHYAM BHIKHBHAI SUTARIA,SURAT vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT

ITA 655/SRT/2023[2017-2018]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the details and documents submitted by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SHREE CHEMOPHARMA ANKLESHWAR PVT. LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

ITA 706/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding the assessee's reasons for not submitting it earlier to be acceptable. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the evidence.

THAKORBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

ITA 722/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

ANILKUMAR HARISHANKAR PANDEY,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 587/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared income exceeding 5% of the cash credit entries. Following a precedent where 5% of bank deposits were considered a reasonable addition, the Tribunal directed that no further addition should be made as the declared income already met this threshold.

VIRAL SHAILESH SHAH,VALSAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, VALSAD, VALSAD

ITA 536/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including Form No. 16 and contract notes, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities. The additions were deleted as the evidence supported the assessee's claims.

SHRI LILADHAR NANJIBHAI HINGRAJYA,TAPI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BARDOLI

ITA 517/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal found that the notice from NFAC was not served on the correct email address provided by the assessee. Considering the principle of natural justice and the substantial rights involved, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

HEMANT JASHUBHAI GANDHI, HUF,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 378/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a plethora of documents and evidence to explain the source of cash deposits for the property purchases. The AO had not refuted or discredited these evidences, and therefore, the addition made was deleted.

KAMLESH JETHMAL SHAH,SILVASSA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA

ITA 369/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice over technical considerations and the Supreme Court's stance on condonation of delay. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to present their case at the lower appellate level.

CHANDA SUNIL MERATWAL,SURAT vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPPLEALS, SURAT

ITA 339/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as the assessee did not appear and did not provide sufficient cause for delay.

KAMAL JAYANTILAL ZAVERI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT

ITA 545/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the estimated expenditure for earning commission should be increased from 20% to 50% of the gross commission. It also held that the addition for the difference in interest income was a double addition and deleted it.

KAMAL JAYANTILAL ZAVERI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 546/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the estimated expenditure for earning commission should be increased from 20% to 50% of the gross commission. It also held that the addition for the difference in interest income was a double addition and deleted it.

KAMAL JAYANTILAL ZAVERI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(7), , SURAT

ITA 544/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the estimated expenditure for earning commission should be increased from 20% to 50% of the gross commission. It also held that the addition for the difference in interest income was a double addition and deleted it.

KAMAL JAYANTILAL ZAVERI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT

ITA 543/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the estimated expenditure for earning commission should be increased from 20% to 50% of the gross commission. It also held that the addition for the difference in interest income was a double addition and deleted it.

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment due to bogus purchases, justifying the reopening of the assessment. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment due to bogus purchases, justifying the reopening of the assessment. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. -4, SURAT vs SHREE KUBERJI TEXTILE DECK, SURAT

ITA 223/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no independent evidence to support the 'on money' transaction. The Tribunal noted that the seized material did not relate to all units and that extrapolation of rates was not permissible without corroborative evidence.

KAMAL JAYANTILAL ZAVERI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 547/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the estimated expenditure for earning commission should be increased from 20% to 50% of the gross commission. It also held that the addition for the difference in interest income was a double addition and deleted it.

SUNI DAVIS THAKOLKKARAN,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 548/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the re-assessment proceedings and the addition made by the lower authorities. Since the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence regarding the unexplained credits in his bank account, the action of the lower authorities was accepted.

YASH BHUPESHBHAI TAMAKUWALA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(5), NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2)(6), SURAT

ITA 580/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted on this technical ground.

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL COMPANY PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 451/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL COMPANY PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 452/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

MUKESH RAJENDRA PRASAD THAKUR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, VAPI

ITA 590/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing the appeal. However, on merits, since the assessee failed to provide any evidence or submissions to substantiate the agricultural income or the claim for depreciation, the Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.

GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED LIMITED,VAPI vs THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 513/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the SVNIT report supported the assessee's consumption and production figures, and the sales were not disputed. While acknowledging retracted employee statements about inflated purchases, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 9% gross profit, considering the assessee's declared GP and the fact that only profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed.

DCIT, VAPI vs GUJARART POLYSOL CHEMICAL LTD, VAPI

ITA 595/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the SVNIT report supported the assessee's consumption and production figures, and the sales were not disputed. While acknowledging retracted employee statements about inflated purchases, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 9% gross profit, considering the assessee's declared GP and the fact that only profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed.

MANOJKUMAR ISHWARBHAI PATEL,BARDOLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BARDOLI

ITA 710/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. The appeal was then admitted for hearing on its merits.

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL COMPANY PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 453/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the principle of natural justice. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

RAMESHKUMAR LALAN TIWARI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 484/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made for a deduction not claimed by the assessee. For the PF/ESIC contribution issue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., but directed that similar relief be granted if the jurisdictional High Court rules in favor of the assessee in a pending case.

OM SAI STONE LIMITED,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), SURAT

ITA 666/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2011-12, the reopening was held invalid, and the additions were deleted. For AY 2012-13, issues related to share capital and foreign travel expenses were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD,SURAT vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.,-1(2), SURAT

ITA 118/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C must be based on incriminating material found during a search. It also allowed exemption under Section 54B for the assessee after finding that the conditions for claiming it were satisfied, including the use of agricultural land for agricultural purposes and regular declaration of agricultural income.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT vs VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD, SURAT

ITA 121/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C must be based on incriminating material found during a search. It also allowed exemption under Section 54B for the assessee after finding that the conditions for claiming it were satisfied, including the use of agricultural land for agricultural purposes and regular declaration of agricultural income.

OM SAI STONE LIMITED,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(4), SURAT

ITA 667/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2011-12, the reopening was held invalid, and the additions were deleted. For AY 2012-13, issues related to share capital and foreign travel expenses were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI , NAVSARI

ITA 18/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that the issue was covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, it directed that if the constitutional validity of the relevant sections is challenged successfully by another assessee, the current assessee should be granted similar relief.

CHIRAG MISHRIMAL HIRANI,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

ITA 582/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Dec 2023AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148 were invalid. This was due to the lack of proper satisfaction, approval from a competent authority, and the notice being issued by a non-jurisdictional officer.

SHRI MODH PATNI GHANCHI GNATI PUNCH TRUST,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT

ITA 88/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, noting that the report was available before the assessment order and there was no mala fide intention. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4, SURAT, SURAT vs M/S. SHREE KUBERJI ASSOCIATES, SURAT

ITA 155/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the addition, finding that the AO had extrapolated the 'on-money' to all units without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal also directed that the addition should be taxed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE.

KSHITIJ MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 717/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to plead their case before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the Ld. CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI M LTD.,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(3), SURAT

ITA 672/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the income from co-operative banks, rental income, and sale of crackers were not eligible for disallowance under Section 80P, especially since the assessee had offered these incomes to tax separately and had not claimed any deduction under Section 80P on them. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision regarding interest income from co-operative banks.

MAHAVIR EDUCATION TRUST,SURAT vs ADDITIONAL CIT CPC/ JURISDICTIONAL A.O. EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, BENGALURU/SURAT

ITA 647/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause due to the technical issue with the portal. On merits, the Tribunal allowed the filing of Form 10B and directed the Assessing Officer to grant relief for income accumulation upon verification, considering the delay was condoned by the CIT(Exemptions).

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs SUNIL MITTAL HUF , SURAT

ITA 520/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) correctly restricted the addition on purchases and rightly deleted the addition on cash deposits, as the assessee had sufficiently substantiated its claim through PMGKY disclosure and evidence of cash on hand.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs M/S SURAT LIFE CARE PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 160/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the Rs. 1,95,00,000/- should be taxed as business income, not under Section 115BBE. It also confirmed the allowance of deduction under Section 35AD as the assessee met the conditions, including having more than 100 beds and filing a revised return.

AMIT INDUSTRIES,DAMAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WD., DAMAN

ITA 119/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the issue of stock addition to the CIT(A) for adjudication after the excise proceedings conclude. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) for transportation charges was deleted as payments were made to individual truck owners for amounts less than Rs. 35,000 per bill.

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that mobile cranes registered as heavy motor vehicles fall under the category of 'motor lorries' and are eligible for higher depreciation. Following the Gujarat High Court's judgment, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

RAKESH CHITRANJAN BANGDIWALA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

ITA 686/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits and failed to adjudicate all grounds. Therefore, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

VASIMKHAN HAMIDKHAN PATHAN,DANG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 704/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income without any additions and there was no finding of concealment in the assessment order, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not imposable. The Tribunal followed previous judgments where penalty was deleted on similar facts.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs SHRI SUNNY CHANDRAKANT FUDHNAWALA, SURAT

ITA 707/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once the revision order under Section 263 was quashed by a co-ordinate bench, the subsequent assessment order passed in consequence of that revision order would not survive. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

BHARATKUMAR NATHUBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, VALSAD

ITA 698/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the lower authorities passed orders ex parte. Therefore, the assessee is granted one more opportunity to explain the deposits.

NAVAPURA CO OP CREDIT CONSUMER SOCIETY LTD,SURAT vs THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE

ITA 711/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., held that cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on gross interest receipts from cooperative banks. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.