1991 (11) TMI 119 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT rules for assessee, overturning disallowances under section 40A(3) & section 68 with emphasis on procedural compliance

LADHARAM LAKHIMAL. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, directing for the deletion of disallowances under section 40A(3) and addition under section 68 for loans taken ... - Issues:1. Disallowances under section 40A(3)2. Addition under section 68 for loans taken from various parties3. Jurisdictional issue under section 143(2)(b)Analysis:1. The first issue pertains to disallowances under section 40A(3). The assessee contested the disallowances of Rs. 4,800 and Rs. 76,000 made by the CIT(A) under this section. The assessee argued that the disallowances were unjustified based on the evidence presented. The ITAT considered the submissions and directed for the deletion of these disallowances, stating that they were incorrect based on the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The second issue involves an addition of Rs. 36,500 under section 68 for loans taken from various parties. The assessee claimed that the loans were adequately proven, and therefore, the addition should be deleted. Additionally, the ITAT noted discrepancies in the treatment of certain advances by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, directing for the deletion of the Rs. 36,500 addition and the unaddressed Rs. 6,000 addition. The ITAT emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the evidence before making such additions.3. The critical issue in this judgment relates to the jurisdictional matter under section 143(2)(b). The ITAT addressed the illegal assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer without obtaining prior approval from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The ITAT highlighted that the Assessing Officer must obtain approval before reopening an assessment completed under section 143(1). Despite repeated requests for information, the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate the requisite approval was obtained. Consequently, the ITAT ruled that the assessment conducted under section 143(3) was without jurisdiction and annulled it. As a result, the ITAT dismissed the departmental appeals and allowed the assessee's appeal.Overall, the judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and thoroughly evaluating evidence before making additions or reopening assessments. The ITAT's decision underscores the significance of jurisdictional compliance in tax assessments to ensure fairness and legality in the process.