426 (Rajasthan) 14. Woodword Governors India v. CIT

253 ITR 745High Court2002#2561 most cited

What is 426 (Rajasthan) 14. Woodword Governors India v. CIT authority for?

Limitation for assessment proceedings is to be counted from the end of the financial year in which the assessment order is passed, not from the date of lifting prohibitory orders.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Woodword Governors India v. CIT · 253 ITR 745 · limitation for assessment · assessment within limitation · assessment order date · financial year end

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 426 (Rajasthan) 14. Woodword Governors India v. CIT

Vamita Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Balotra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

…issued was only because of ‘non-receipt of the notices’ by the assessee and therefore, in our considered view, the same was a “reasonable cause” as has also been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Woodward Governor Nidia P Ltd. Vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 745 (Delhi) wherein it was held that levy of penalty is not automatic and the absence of a ‘reasonable cause’ is necessary. 13. Further, the Coordinate Bench of Indore ITAT, in the case of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 713/Ind/2015, 2016 Tax Pub (DT) 4071 (Ind-Trib) has held as under: “that power to levy the penalty…

426 (Rajasthan) 14. Woodword Governors India v. CIT (253 ITR 745) — Cited in 45 Judgments | BharatTax