Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

133 ITR 7High Court1982#2045 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa authority for?

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1989 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa · Section 154 · debatable issue · rectification of mistake · Section 263 · revision power · penalty provisions · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 270A · erroneous assessment order

Also reported as

282 CTR 205

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(a)Section 273(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)satisfaction for initiation of penaltysection 271aab(1a)assessment order erroneoussection 270a(6)section 270a(2)penalty u/s 270aunder-reporting of incomepenalty under section 270arevision under section 263section 271aacsection 271aab

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…proceedings is barred u/s. 263(1) of the Act. Further the reply of the assessee reads as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that proceedings for the levy of penalty are independent and separate from assessment proceedings and in the case of J.K.D. costa 133 ITR 7, Delhi their Lordship proceeded to state that CIT is not entitled to bring within his scope and deal with penalty proceedings and orders (which are admittedly connected but distinct) while calling for and examining the record of assessment proceedings and orders. Further in the case of P.C.Purn 151 ITR 548 (Delhi) it has been held that an assessmen…

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

…render the assessment erroneous. It was argued that the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked merely to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings. In support of these contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D’Costa (133 ITR 7, Delhi), Addl. CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606, Delhi), CIT vs. Sudarshan Talkies (201 ITR 289, Delhi), CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (242 ITR 45, Delhi), CIT vs. KeshrimalParasmal (157 ITR 484, Rajasthan), CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (192 ITR 337, Calcutta), CIT vs. Parmanand Patel (278 ITR 3, Gujarat), and certain Tribunal decisions incl…

PIYUSH GARG,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CC-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1590/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271A

…ant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the penalty whether should be imposed/initiated u/s. 271AAB/271AAC cannot be the matter of typographical error as appreciated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. J.K. D’Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7, it is clearly held that when issues are debatable, the same cannot be rectified u/s. 154. But in the present case Section 271AAB was wrongly mentioned instead of Section 271AAC. This can be rectified as there was mistake apparent on record and there was no debate in imposing penalty u/s. 271AAC in present assessee’s case. Thus, the Assessing Offic…

VAIBHAV BHARGAVA,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 270A

…1F of the Act, however, there is no recording of any finding that there was under- reporting of income by the assessee under section 270A(2) of the Act. 17. We further find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v/s J.K. D's Costa, reported in [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi), observed as follows: – “We have heard Mr. Wazir Singh, learned counsel for the department, but we are of opinion that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is the only possible conclusion that can be arrived at in, the circumstances of the case. Section 263 enables the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings un…

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…rovisions suggested by PCIT. Earlier also, a similar view was taken in the case of Agencies Rajasthan V AOITA No. 196/JP/2020 AY 2015-16 vide order dated 11.09.2020 9 Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Dausa. 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…

AIR WIND GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 147Section 263Section 270A(9)Section 37Section 69C

…our order. 6. We have gone through the said decisions and we have noted that in the case of M/s. G M Builders, Mumbai (supra), the ITAT took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v/s J.K. D's Costa, reported in [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi), wherein Hon’ble High Court was seized with an identical case wherein revisionary powers were assumed for directing initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act . Hon’ble High court noted that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate proceedings and when the Commissioner is dealing with assessment proceeding…

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHAN RAO KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRLCE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

…on of the Principal Commissioner directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings although we may not agree with the reasoning in its entirety.” 15. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl.CIT v. J.K. D’s Costa, [133 ITR 7 (Delhi)] observed as follows: - “We have heard Mr. Wazir Singh, learned counsel for the department, but we are of opinion that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is the only possible conclusion that can be arrived at in, the circumstances of the case. Section 263 enables the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings un…

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHANA RAO KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

…on of the Principal Commissioner directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings although we may not agree with the reasoning in its entirety.” 15. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl.CIT v. J.K. D’s Costa, [133 ITR 7 (Delhi)] observed as follows: - “We have heard Mr. Wazir Singh, learned counsel for the department, but we are of opinion that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is the only possible conclusion that can be arrived at in, the circumstances of the case. Section 263 enables the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings un…

KOTI NARASIMHA REDDY GUTTIKONDA,GUNTUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…al power under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus:- "9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K.D.'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are: "It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s. 271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings in…

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

…ions of section 263 of the Act. In the case of Surendra Prasad Agarwal (supra), the Hon'ble High Court had considered several decisions quoted by the assessee in its favour. Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Addl CIT Vs J.K.D'Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) (SLP of Department dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court) was also considered. The Hon'ble Court took a view that failure to initiate penalty proceedings can invite provisions of section 263 of the Act. 5. In case of present assessee, the initiation of penalty u/s 270A was under a wrong section. The order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial…

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

…r.\n7. Ld. Counsel Shri Jaimin Shah appearing for the assessee\nsubmitted that the penalty proceedings are independent and\ndistinct from the assessment proceedings and relied upon Delhi\nHigh Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa reported in\n[1982] 133 ITR 7 wherein it was held that failure to initiate or\nwrongful initiation of penalty proceedings does not affect the\nvalidity of the assessment order, which was later confirmed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing Revenue's SLP which is\nreported in [1984] 147 ITR (St.) 1.\n7. 1. Further Ld. Counsel relied upon Chennai Tribunal decision in\nITA No.…

SINGANAMALA SARALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

…by him alone and he cannot direct the Assessing Officer after recording his satisfaction to complete the proceedings. Our above said view is fortified by the judgements relied upon by the assessee which are as under : 1. ACIT Vs. JKD Costa reported in (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Delhi High Court). 2. ACIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi High Court.) 3. CIT Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal reported in (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Rajasthan High Court) 4. CIT Vs. CRK Swamy reported in (2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi reported in (2016) 282 CTR 205 (Punjab & Haryana High Court.) 6. Harish Jain…

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

…71F of the Act, however, there is no recording of any finding that there was under-reporting of income by the assessee under section 270A(2) of the Act. 17. We further find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v/s J.K. D's Costa, reported in [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi), observed as follows: – “We have heard Mr. Wazir Singh, learned counsel for the department, but we are of opinion that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is the only possible conclusion that can be arrived at in, the circumstances of the case. Section 263 enables the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings un…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

…ction 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional CIT v. J.K.D.'Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati…

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

…visional power under s.263 of the Act. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus:- “9. Now adverting to the second limb, it may be noticed that the Delhi High Court in judgment reported in Addl. CIT vs. J.K.D.'Costa (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 224 : (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are: “It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s. 271(1)(a) or under s. 273(b) are proceedings in…

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

…ovisions of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 9. In these facts, now we have to discuss the case law cited by Id.counsel for the assessee of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl.CIT vs. J.K.D'Costa reported in [1982] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi), wherein it is held that where penalty proceedings were initiated before or at the time of making assessment, the CIT cannot invoke power u/s.263(1) of the Act, so as to set aside the assessment order and direct the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K.D'Costa, supra hel…

GURJANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

…ssed, as not being a fit case in which the question arising in the special leave petition should be decided, a special leave petition by the Depart. ment against the judgment dated 27-4-1981 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.R. No. 82 of 1974, reported in [1982] 133 ITR 7, whereby the High Court, on a reference, held that the Commissioner in a suo motu revision under s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 13 Shri Gurjant Singh vs. PCIT 1961, of an assessment proceeding, was not entitled to set aside the assessment order on the ground that there was no mention of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order, and to…

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…same, we answer the second question in favour of the assessee and against the Department, but leave the parties to bear their own costs in all the three references.” 4. We also find that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. J K D’costa (133 ITR 7) has been taken a similar view. The Hon’ble High Court held that an assessment cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because of I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 the failure of ITO to record his opinion on leviability of penalty in the assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court further held as under: “Section 263 o…

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…same, we answer the second question in favour of the assessee and against the Department, but leave the parties to bear their own costs in all the three references.” 4. We also find that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. J K D’costa (133 ITR 7) has been taken a similar view. The Hon’ble High Court held that an assessment cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because of I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 the failure of ITO to record his opinion on leviability of penalty in the assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court further held as under: “Section 263 o…

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…same, we answer the second question in favour of the assessee and against the Department, but leave the parties to bear their own costs in all the three references.” 4. We also find that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. J K D’costa (133 ITR 7) has been taken a similar view. The Hon’ble High Court held that an assessment cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because of I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 the failure of ITO to record his opinion on leviability of penalty in the assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court further held as under: “Section 263 o…

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3