263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain

335 ITR 364High Court2011#4196 most cited

What is 263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain authority for?

The Commissioner (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) using revisional powers under Section 263 if the AO did not initiate them in the original assessment order. The CIT's revisional power under Section 263 cannot be used to create a non-existent proceeding.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain · Section 263 · Section 271(1)(c) · revisional power · penalty proceedings · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · AO not initiating penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271AAC

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aacsection 271aerroneous and prejudicialsection 115bbsection 263section 115bsection 26levy of penaltysection 271(1)(c)section 271(1)section 115bbe

Judgments citing 263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power under s. 263—CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 (P&H) followed; CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 194 CTR (All) 161: (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All) dissented from.” 9.6 Easy Transcription & Software (P) Ltd. (2017) 185 TTJ 504 (Ahd) “Revision—Jurisdiction of CIT—Jurisdiction to direct AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c)—It is not open to CIT to exercise the revisional powers t…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power under s. 263—CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 (P&H) followed; CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 194 CTR (All) 161: (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All) dissented from.” 9.6 Easy Transcription & Software (P) Ltd. (2017) 185 TTJ 504 (Ahd) “Revision—Jurisdiction of CIT—Jurisdiction to direct AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c)—It is not open to CIT to exercise the revisional powers t…

Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3596/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala Pr. Commissioner Of 2/5, Ai Hasnat Chs Income Tax-25 Off S R Marg (West End) C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. North South Road, 10Th Road Bandra Kurla Complex Jvpd, Mumbai-400 049 (East), Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aabpr1985J

For Appellant: Sanjay C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Jacinta zimik vashai, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala Pr. Commissioner of 2/5, AI Hasnat CHS Income Tax-25 Off S R Marg (West End) C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. North South road, 10th Road Bandra Kurla Complex JVPD, Mumbai-400 049 (East), Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent PAN No.AABPR1985J Assessee by : Sanjay C. Shah, AR Revenue by : Jacinta zimik vashai, AR Date of hearing: 16-10-2017 Date of pronouncement : 25 -10-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the revision order passed under se…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…in ITA.No.1624/Mum/2014 dated 23.03.2017 and the Coordinate Bench following decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Paramanand M Patel [278 ITR 3] and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain [335 ITR 364] set aside the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The question to be addressed in this appeal is whether the…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…in ITA.No.1624/Mum/2014 dated 23.03.2017 and the Coordinate Bench following decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Paramanand M Patel [278 ITR 3] and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain [335 ITR 364] set aside the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The question to be addressed in this appeal is whether the…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3920/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…in ITA.No.1624/Mum/2014 dated 23.03.2017 and the Coordinate Bench following decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Paramanand M Patel [278 ITR 3] and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain [335 ITR 364] set aside the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The question to be addressed in this appeal is whether the…

Dharmanandan Diamonds P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1624/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri C.N. Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralghawalaFor Respondent: Shri Tufail Ahmad Khan
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…bmits that the Ld. Commissioner has no power to set aside the assessment order to initiate penalty proceedings. For this proposition he placed reliance on the following decisions : 1) CIT Vs. Paramanand M Patel [278 ITR 3 (Guj)] 2) CIT Vs. Subhash Kumar Jain [335 ITR 364 (P&H)] 3. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ld. Commissioner in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 M/s. Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd ITA No.1624/Mum/2014, A.Y.2009-10 4. We have heard the rival submission…

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…lkies (201 ITR 289 (Delhi) CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (242 ITR 45(Delhi) CiT v. Keshrimal Parsmal (157 ITR 484 (Rajasthan) Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT (173 ITR 510 (Gauhati) CIT v. Linotype and Machinery Ltd. (192 ITR 337(Calcutta). CIT v. Subhash kumar Jain (335 ITR 364(Punjab & Haryana) 4.1 Ld. AR further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain, 142 ITR 606, in which it was observed that though it was true that the satisfaction of the ITO, before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, was the condition precedent for an exercise of the jurisdicti…