ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — September 2020

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs DECCAN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., VIJAYAWADA

ITA 572/VIZ/2019[2016-2017]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2016-2017Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the admitted additional income did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB. It was based on estimation and not supported by any incriminating material or entries found during the search.

M/S. DECCAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR

ITA 663/VIZ/2019[2016-2017]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2016-2017Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the admitted additional income did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB. It was based on estimation and not supported by any incriminating material or entries found during the search.

VASAVI MRO PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 125/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.

ANDAY SARADA DEVI,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

ITA 129/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs MANCHUKONDA SHYAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 87/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition was unwarranted as there was no other evidence to support the employee's statement beyond the WhatsApp messages. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition, considering the lack of corroborative evidence.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA vs KANDULA LAKSHUMMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KADAPA

ITA 179/VIZ/2018[2013-2014]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2020AY 2013-2014Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing details and vouchers. The AO failed to prove any excess payment for personal benefit of the member, thus no violation of Section 13(1)(c) occurred.

THE SUB REGISTRAR,SARPAVARAM vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELL), HYDERABAD

ITA 82/VIZ/2020[2011-13]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2020AY 2011-13Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

THE SUB-REGISTRAR,PEDDAPURAM vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELL), HYDERABAD

ITA 81/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.