ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan

200 ITR 153High Court1993#3999 most cited

What is ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan authority for?

The Commissioner (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act while exercising revisional powers under Section 263, as penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. The CIT cannot pass an order under Section 263 pertaining to penalty.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sudershan Talkies · ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain · Nihal Chand Rekyan · section 263 · section 270A · penalty proceedings · assessment proceedings · revisional powers · commissioner of income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 270ASection 139Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 217

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aab(1a)section 273assessment order erroneouspenalty u/s 270asection 263(1)section 271aacsection 270erroneous and prejudicialsection 271aaconcealment of incomesection 44ad

Judgments citing ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Circle), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 219/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…1.09.2020 9.2The case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi)(DPB 18-21) has been followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl. CIT v. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. C. R. K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158(Cal) (DPB II 28-29); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (1998) 173 ITR 510 (Gauhati),wherein it has been consistentlyheld that if the CIT finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under S. 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceed…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 218/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…1.09.2020 9.2The case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi)(DPB 18-21) has been followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl. CIT v. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. C. R. K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158(Cal) (DPB II 28-29); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (1998) 173 ITR 510 (Gauhati),wherein it has been consistentlyheld that if the CIT finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under S. 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceed…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 217/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

…1.09.2020 9.2The case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi)(DPB 18-21) has been followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl. CIT v. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. C. R. K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158(Cal) (DPB II 28-29); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (1998) 173 ITR 510 (Gauhati),wherein it has been consistentlyheld that if the CIT finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under S. 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceed…

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 216/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…1.09.2020 9.2The case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi)(DPB 18-21) has been followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl. CIT v. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. C. R. K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158(Cal) (DPB II 28-29); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (1998) 173 ITR 510 (Gauhati),wherein it has been consistentlyheld that if the CIT finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under S. 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceed…

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

…1.09.2020 9.2The case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi)(DPB 18-21) has been followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl. CIT v. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. C. R. K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158(Cal) (DPB II 28-29); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (1998) 173 ITR 510 (Gauhati),wherein it has been consistentlyheld that if the CIT finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under S. 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceed…

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

…1.09.2020 9.2The case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi)(DPB 18-21) has been followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl. CIT v. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. C. R. K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 158(Cal) (DPB II 28-29); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (1998) 173 ITR 510 (Gauhati),wherein it has been consistentlyheld that if the CIT finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under S. 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceed…

Sathyanarayanan Radhika, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sathyanarayanan Radhika, The Asst. Commissioner Of No. 362, Raja Street, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 001. Non Corporate Circle, [Pan: Afgpr-7178-R] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl. Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

…ing power u/s. 263 of the Act. For this, :- 5 -: she referred to the observations of Hon’ble Madras High Court in para 2 & 3, which reads as under: “2. Moreover, as held by a Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CITv. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 200 ITR 153 . failure on the part of the assessing authority to initiate penalty proceedings would not give jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Income-tax to pass an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, j 1961 ('the Act') and to direct initiation of such proceedings. We are in respectful agreement with that view. 3. The question referred to us for…

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/AHD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1232/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri P. B
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…resh? Such a question is no more res integra. In the case Addl.CIT vs. J.K. D’Costa [192] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi) followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl.CIT vs. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. C.K.K.Swami (254 ITR 158); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (173 ITR 510 (Gauhati), it has been hled that if the Commissioner finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under section 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct initiation of p…

Jyoti Ranjan Roy, Kolkata vs. PCIT-17, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1015/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 25Section 250Section 251Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…essee in this regard relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. C.R. Swamy reported in 254 ITR 158 (Mad). The assessee also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sudarshan Talkies reported in 200 ITR 153 (Del). However, Ld. CIT disregarded the contention of assessee by observing as under:- “3.1 The above written submission has been discussed with the Ld. A.R. in the hearing held on 21.02.2017. In the above written submission, the Ld. A.R. has first pointed out that the penalty imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) for the same assessment year i.e., 200…