CIT v. Hissaria Bros.

291 ITR 244High Court2007#777 most cited

What is CIT v. Hissaria Bros. authority for?

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

132

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hissaria Bros. · section 269SS penalty · section 269T penalty · section 271D · section 271E · section 275(1)(c) limitation · penalty proceedings independence · assessment proceedings completion · appellate quantum proceedings · Supreme Court upheld decision

Also reported as

169 Taxmann 262211 CTR 156

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 269SSSection 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 275

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271esection 269tsection 275section 271epenalty under section 271dsection 245hsection 261revision under section 263section 269ss

Judgments citing CIT v. Hissaria Bros.

SATYABRATA PANDA,GANJAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BERHAMPUR

ITA 473/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Satyabrata Panda Ito, Ward-1, Berhampur Vs Banglow Street, Khallikote, Ganjanm, Odisha-761030. (Pan: Aszpp1645H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271BSection 271DSection 273B

…isfaction is to be recorded in any proceedings so also in Section 269SSof the Act, there is no reference of pendency of any proceedings before initiation of proceedings. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hissaria Bros. reported in [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj.), held that “penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and 269T of the Act are not related to the assessment proceedings but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or the other proceedings during wh…

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, of Income-tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AFYPT0164P Assessee by Shri Venus Rawka, CA & AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.12.2023 passed by learned Co…

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

…h Court dated 31.01.2025 in WP (C) No.37927 of 2024 in the case of M/s. Vee Ess Hardwares, Ambalapuzha vs. ACIT, Alappuzha & Another. The learned DR has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) on the point that the penalty proceedings can be initiated independently of any proceedings but obviously the penalty proceedings can be initiated when the default is brought to the notice of the concerned authority. He has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 13. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant…

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

…h Court dated 31.01.2025 in WP (C) No.37927 of 2024 in the case of M/s. Vee Ess Hardwares, Ambalapuzha vs. ACIT, Alappuzha & Another. The learned DR has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) on the point that the penalty proceedings can be initiated independently of any proceedings but obviously the penalty proceedings can be initiated when the default is brought to the notice of the concerned authority. He has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 13. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant…

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

…h Court dated 31.01.2025 in WP (C) No.37927 of 2024 in the case of M/s. Vee Ess Hardwares, Ambalapuzha vs. ACIT, Alappuzha & Another. The learned DR has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) on the point that the penalty proceedings can be initiated independently of any proceedings but obviously the penalty proceedings can be initiated when the default is brought to the notice of the concerned authority. He has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 13. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant…

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

…h Court dated 31.01.2025 in WP (C) No.37927 of 2024 in the case of M/s. Vee Ess Hardwares, Ambalapuzha vs. ACIT, Alappuzha & Another. The learned DR has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) on the point that the penalty proceedings can be initiated independently of any proceedings but obviously the penalty proceedings can be initiated when the default is brought to the notice of the concerned authority. He has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 13. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. JUGAL KISHORE GARG ALIAS SH. JUGAL KISHORE DEREWALA, JAIPUR

ITA 1320/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…on 23.12.2024, were barred by\nlimitation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the assessee were\ndeleted.\n7. Learned AR for the assessee-respondent herein has submitted that\nin the case titled of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hissaria Brothers,\n(2007) 291 ITR 244 (Rajasthan), our own Hon'ble High Court had dealt with\nthe issue of limitation and Hon'ble Apex Court upheld said decision.\nThe contention is that all these four matters are also covered by the\nsaid decisions and Learned CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal filed by\nthe assessee, thereby deleting the orders of penalty, and as such, all these…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. JUGAL KISHORE GARG ALIAS SH. JUGAL KISHORE DEREWALA, JAIPUR

ITA 1319/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…on 23.12.2024, were barred by\nlimitation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the assessee were\ndeleted.\n7. Learned AR for the assessee-respondent herein has submitted that\nin the case titled of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hissaria Brothers,\n(2007) 291 ITR 244 (Rajasthan), our own Hon'ble High Court had dealt with\nthe issue of limitation and Hon'ble Apex Court upheld said decision.\nThe contention is that all these four matters are also covered by the\nsaid decisions and Learned CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal filed by\nthe assessee, thereby deleting the orders of penalty, and as such, all these…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. JUGAL KISHORE GARG ALIAS SH. JUGAL KISHORE DEREWALA, JAIPUR

ITA 1318/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…on 23.12.2024, were barred by\nlimitation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the assessee were\ndeleted.\n7. Learned AR for the assessee-respondent herein has submitted that\nin the case titled of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hissaria Brothers,\n(2007) 291 ITR 244 (Rajasthan), our own Hon'ble High Court had dealt with\nthe issue of limitation and Hon'ble Apex Court upheld said decision.\nThe contention is that all these four matters are also covered by the\nsaid decisions and Learned CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal filed by\nthe assessee, thereby deleting the orders of penalty, and as such, all these…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPURQ, JAIPUR vs. JUGAL KISHORE GARG ALIAS SH. JUGAL KISHORE DEREWALA, JAIPUR

ITA 1317/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ssed on 23.12.2024, were barred by limitation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the assessee were deleted. 7. Learned AR for the assessee-respondent herein has submitted that in the case titled of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hissaria Brothers, (2007) 291 ITR 244 (Rajasthan), our own Hon’ble High Court had dealt with the issue of limitation and Hon’ble Apex Court upheld said decision. Sh. Jugal Kishore Garg alias Sh. Jugal Kishore Derewala, Jaipur. The contention is that all these four matters are also covered by the said decisions and Learned CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee,…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1178/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ings did not hinge on\nthe completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made\nexplicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court\nconcurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008]\n169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms:\n\"The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions t…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

ITA 1177/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ings did not hinge on\nthe completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made\nexplicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court\nconcurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008]\n169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms:\n\"The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions t…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1176/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ings did not hinge on\nthe completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made\nexplicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court\nconcurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008]\n169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms:\n\"The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions t…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1175/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ings did not hinge on\nthe completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made\nexplicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court\nconcurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008]\n169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms:\n\"The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions t…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1174/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ings did not hinge on\nthe completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made\nexplicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court\nconcurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008]\n169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms:\n\"The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions t…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions throu…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1169/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ings did not hinge on\nthe completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made\nexplicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court\nconcurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008]\n169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms:\n\"The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions t…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1168/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ings did not hinge on\nthe completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made\nexplicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court\nconcurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008]\n169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms:\n\"The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions t…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…eedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008] 169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions throu…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1166/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…ings did not hinge on\nthe completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made\nexplicit in the decision in Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (supra) in which the Court\nconcurred with the view expressed in CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244/[2008]\n169 Taxman 262 (Raj.) in the following terms:\n\"The expression other relevant thing used in s.275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions t…

Showing 1–20 of 132 · Page 1 of 7