ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — January 2024

KIRAN KUMAR KAMMILI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ITO, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 234/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Fixed31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the condonation petition was not supported by the required affidavit and documentary evidence. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation.

VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 280/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It also held that the CIT(A) should have provided a sufficient opportunity to the assessee, remitting the matter back for a fresh hearing.

SOBHA DEVI DILIPKUMAR,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 108/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable when the investments are disclosed in the assessee's books of accounts and offered for taxation. The cash deposits were recorded in the books, making the addition unsustainable.

KATTULA VENKATESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), GUNTUR

ITA 41/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2024AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee established the source for Rs. 7 lakhs out of the disputed amount based on additional evidence. The remaining Rs. 4,50,500/- was confirmed as income from unexplained sources.

PASARLAPUDILANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,PASARLAPUDILANKA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2., AMALAPURAM

ITA 19/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal decided to club the appeals due to identical grounds raised by the assessees. The specific decision on the merits of the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs SRI BHAGAVAN NIKETAN LIMITED, KOLLKATA

ITA 118/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the audited financial statements which reflected the allotment of shares and receipt of cash for share capital. The Tribunal found that the cash payments were made out of available funds and the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs DOLPHIN HIGHRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,, KILKATA

ITA 120/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the audited financial statements which reflected the allotment of shares and receipt of cash for share capital. The Tribunal found that the cash payments were made out of available funds and the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

SUKHIBHAVA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KUKATPALLY vs ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), VISHAKAPTANAM

ITA 239/VIZ/2023[2012-2013]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs ALAKRAM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 151/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the audited financial statements which reflected the allotment of shares and receipt of cash for share capital. The Tribunal found that the cash payments were made out of available funds and the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

OAKWOOD THE RAJAHMUNDRY SCHOOL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 103/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal deleted the addition for unexplained cash credit as it was explained as rent payable. However, it confirmed a part of the excess rent claim as the assessee could not prove the full rent payment.

LAKSHMANA RAO SAMBANGI,VIZIANAGARAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

ITA 224/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2024AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption on the leave encashment for the period served with the Department of Telecommunications before absorption into BSNL. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case.

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 119/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2024AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to file the return, not considering Section 50C, and not providing explanations amounted to concealment of income. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was therefore justified.

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 192/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was invalid as the AO had applied its mind during the original assessment. Consequently, the consequential order passed by the AO was quashed.

SMT KOTYALA SUJATHA L/R OF KOTYALA KUMARA SWAMY,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TADEPALLIGUDEM

ITA 697/VIZ/2019[2004-05]Status: Disposed11 Jan 2024AY 2004-05Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registered sale agreements requires a decree from the Civil Court as per the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A unilateral cancellation deed registered with the Sub-Registrar without a Civil Court decree is not valid in law. The Tribunal found no cogent material to suggest that the land owner registered the agreement without receiving consideration, as the recitals clearly stated receipt of sale consideration. Simply cancelling the registered agreement via a cancellation deed is insufficient to conclude that consideration was not paid. Furthermore, the assessee had admitted before the AO for the addition of Rs. 35,96,210/-, precluding them from arguing non-payment. The AO had already granted relief to the extent of Rs. 63,03,790/- after considering the creditworthiness of the 30 investors, and the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of these investors. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and upheld the orders of the AO and CIT(A). All grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

VUDATHA VANI RAO,RAJAHMUNDRY vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

ITA 254/VIZ/2023[2017-2018]Status: Disposed11 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

The Tribunal granted further relief of Rs. 5,00,000/- for deposits made before the demonetisation period, considering them outside the scope of scrutiny. The remaining addition of Rs. 3,30,000/- was upheld due to the assessee's failure to establish the genuineness of transactions during the demonetisation period.

NAGESWARA RAO VISWANADHA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 213/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that as per the provisos to Section 50C(1), the value on the date of the agreement or receipt of advance should be considered if the agreement date and registration date are different and part consideration was received through banking channels. Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of registration could not be applied.

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM GLOBAL LIMITED,UAE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 249/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) is without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering it null and void and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. ACIT, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP. The Tribunal noted that the facts in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. were identical to the assessee's case and that various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in Sinogas Management PTE Limited, have held that provisions of Section 144C(15) must be mandatorily followed for foreign companies. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s. Volex Interconnect (India) Private Limited as a Single Judge decision with different facts. Consequently, the legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed. The original grounds of appeal on merits were rendered infructuous. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to all the other appeals filed by the assessee for the subsequent assessment years.

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM GLOBAL LIMITED,UAE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 245/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) is without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering it null and void and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. ACIT, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP. The Tribunal noted that the facts in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. were identical to the assessee's case and that various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in Sinogas Management PTE Limited, have held that provisions of Section 144C(15) must be mandatorily followed for foreign companies. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s. Volex Interconnect (India) Private Limited as a Single Judge decision with different facts. Consequently, the legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed. The original grounds of appeal on merits were rendered infructuous. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to all the other appeals filed by the assessee for the subsequent assessment years.

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM GLOBAL LIMITED,UAE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 247/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) is without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering it null and void and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. ACIT, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP. The Tribunal noted that the facts in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. were identical to the assessee's case and that various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in Sinogas Management PTE Limited, have held that provisions of Section 144C(15) must be mandatorily followed for foreign companies. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s. Volex Interconnect (India) Private Limited as a Single Judge decision with different facts. Consequently, the legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed. The original grounds of appeal on merits were rendered infructuous. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to all the other appeals filed by the assessee for the subsequent assessment years.

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM GLOBAL LIMITED,UAE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 248/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) is without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering it null and void and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. ACIT, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP. The Tribunal noted that the facts in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. were identical to the assessee's case and that various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in Sinogas Management PTE Limited, have held that provisions of Section 144C(15) must be mandatorily followed for foreign companies. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s. Volex Interconnect (India) Private Limited as a Single Judge decision with different facts. Consequently, the legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed. The original grounds of appeal on merits were rendered infructuous. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to all the other appeals filed by the assessee for the subsequent assessment years.

MANNE KRISHNA KISHORE,RAJAHMUNDRY vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 312/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of severe ill health, supported only by a medical certificate without authenticated medical records, did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal.

GOLLAMUDI VENKATESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

ITA 290/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

ITA 299/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity before the CIT(A) and that principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM GLOBAL LIMITED,UAE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 250/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) is without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering it null and void and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. ACIT, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP. The Tribunal noted that the facts in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. were identical to the assessee's case and that various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in Sinogas Management PTE Limited, have held that provisions of Section 144C(15) must be mandatorily followed for foreign companies. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s. Volex Interconnect (India) Private Limited as a Single Judge decision with different facts. Consequently, the legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed. The original grounds of appeal on merits were rendered infructuous. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to all the other appeals filed by the assessee for the subsequent assessment years.

SREEDHARALA JOGARAO & SONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 120/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the specific disallowances made under Section 40A(3) and for prior period expenses were beyond the scope of a rectification order under Section 154, as the AO had already considered these expenses and made an ad-hoc disallowance in the original assessment.

VOBILISETTY SUBBALAKSHMI L/R OF LATE VOBILISETTY VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 275/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It held that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from prosecuting the appeal before the CIT(A) and that principles of natural justice required another opportunity.