ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — May 2023

SRI RAJARAJESWARI CHARITABLE TRUST,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

ITA 116/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: Disposed31 May 2023Remanded

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's plea for one more opportunity, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E). The assessees are directed to comply with the notices and submit the required information.

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM& NAGARATNAMMA CHARITIES,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

ITA 115/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: Disposed31 May 2023Remanded

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply, decided to provide one last opportunity based on principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh hearing.

POLISETTY SOMASUNDDARAM CHARITIES,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

ITA 114/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: Disposed31 May 2023Remanded

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's plea for one more opportunity, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E). The assessees are directed to comply with the notices and submit the required information.

KAKRLA SURYA GANGADHAR TILAK,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 178/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of notice under Section 148 are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Since the notice was not served on the assessee at the correct address, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order are void.

KAKARLA GUNA VIDYA SARASWATHI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 177/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed31 May 2023AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of notice under Section 148 are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Since the notice was not served on the assessee at the correct address, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order are void.

PEACE FELLOWSHIP CHARITABLE TRUST,KAKINADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS WARD), RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 112/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 May 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

TAMMI RAJU VEGESNA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMALAPURAM

ITA 122/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 May 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 257/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 based on a proposal from the AO, not on its own volition, making the reopening bad in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.

THE DISTRICT COOP CENTRAL BANK LTD,KAKINADA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

ITA 38/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a chance to present its case.

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no tangible material available with the AO to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was quashed.

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no tangible material available with the AO to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was quashed.

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 259/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 based on a proposal from the AO, not on its own volition, making the reopening bad in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 258/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 based on a proposal from the AO, not on its own volition, making the reopening bad in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 260/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 based on a proposal from the AO, not on its own volition, making the reopening bad in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 256/VIZ/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 based on a proposal from the AO, not on its own volition, making the reopening bad in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD VADLAMUDI, GUNTUR

ITA 154/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was ineligible for Section 54F exemption as they owned another residential property in the USA at the time of the original asset's transfer. Consequently, the grounds related to investment timelines became infructuous.

MANEPALLI RANADHEER,VIJAYAWADA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 261/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 based on a proposal from the AO, not on its own volition, making the reopening bad in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.

SUDHAKARA RAO POTNURU,SRIKAKULAM vs ITO, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

ITA 133/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-2018Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO is directed to consider the additional evidence and provide the assessee an opportunity to establish their claim, ensuring principles of natural justice.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs RAVINDRA BHARATHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NELLORE

ITA 160/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment based solely on an admission during a survey, without corroborative evidence or rejection of books of account, is bad in law. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.

BALAJI TEMPLE TRUST,SRIKAKULAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 204/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose, such as corpus donations for acquiring capital assets, are not taxable as income under Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act, even in the absence of Section 12A registration during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision.

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no tangible material available to the Assessing Officer to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also noted the lack of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no tangible material available with the AO to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was quashed.

THE DISTRICT COOP CENTRAL BANK LTD,KAKINADA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

ITA 39/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a chance to present its case.

SAMYUKTA HEALTH & ACADEMIC SOCIETY,ANAKAPALLE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 45/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the CIT(E) and the assessee met the conditions for exemption, the matter should be remitted to the AO. The AO was directed to grant exemption under Section 11.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VIJAYAWADA vs RAMA KRISHNA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 123/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly followed the Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions issued by ICAI. The CIT(A) had rightly examined the issue and allowed the assessee's appeal.

HASINI INFRA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS,KAKINADA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 10/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal adjudicated the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The Tribunal found that the quantum sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted while adjudicating the assessee's appeals, rendering the revenue's grounds of appeal unsustainable.

HASINI INFRA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS,KAKINADA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 11/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal adjudicated the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The Tribunal found that the quantum sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted while adjudicating the assessee's appeals, rendering the revenue's grounds of appeal unsustainable.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY vs HASINI INFRA CONSRTUCTIONS& DEVELOPERS, KAKINADA

ITA 25/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal adjudicated the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The Tribunal found that the quantum sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted while adjudicating the assessee's appeals, rendering the revenue's grounds of appeal unsustainable.

NAVYA HASINI AND HARSHITHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS,BHIMAVARAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 12/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A was not valid as the incriminating material was found at the premises of the assessee's partner and not the assessee itself, and no corroborative evidence was found at the assessee's premises. Therefore, the assessment made under Section 153A was void ab initio.

NAVYA HASINI AND HARSHITHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS,BHIMAVARAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 13/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A was not valid as the incriminating material was found at the premises of the assessee's partner and not the assessee itself, and no corroborative evidence was found at the assessee's premises. Therefore, the assessment made under Section 153A was void ab initio.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)., VISAKHAPATNAM vs VARUN OGILI, NELLORE

ITA 137/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the interest income, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the amount voluntarily admitted by the assessee. However, concerning the unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s telescoping of cash deposits from a previous year and set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this ground.

NAVYA HASINI AND HARSHITHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS,BHIMAVARAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 14/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A was not valid as the incriminating material was found at the premises of the assessee's partner and not the assessee itself, and no corroborative evidence was found at the assessee's premises. Therefore, the assessment made under Section 153A was void ab initio.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY vs HASINI INFRA CONSRTUCTIONS& DEVELOPERS, KAKINADA

ITA 24/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal adjudicated the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The Tribunal found that the quantum sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted while adjudicating the assessee's appeals, rendering the revenue's grounds of appeal unsustainable.

HASINI INFRA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS,KAKINADA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 9/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal adjudicated the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The Tribunal found that the quantum sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted while adjudicating the assessee's appeals, rendering the revenue's grounds of appeal unsustainable.