CIT v. Jagdish Prasad\nChoudhary

211 ITR 472High Court1995#11278 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(5)section 271csection 273section 192section 273bsection 156section 201(1a)assessee in defaultsection 201(1)section 201section 19commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing CIT v. Jagdish Prasad\nChoudhary

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 491/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

…a set of facts or actions to prove whether a reasonable person have come to the same conclusion or acted in the same way given the totality of the circumstances. 6.4 In this context, it is also relevant to note that in CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary [1995] 211 ITR 472, a Full Bench of the Patna High Court has interpreted the expression "reasonable cause", as follows: 'The word "reasonable cause" has not been defined under the Act but it could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression "sufficient cause". Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the word "reasonable cause" wou…

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 490/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

…o a set of facts or actions to prove whether a reasonable person have come to the same conclusion or acted in the same way given the totality of the circumstances. 6.4 In this context, it is also relevant to note that in CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary [1995] 211 ITR 472, a Full Bench of the Patna High Court has interpreted the expression "reasonable cause", as follows: 'The word "reasonable cause" has not been defined under the Act but it could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression "sufficient cause". Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the word "reasonable cause" woul…

State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Kanpur vs. ACIT(TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 488/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

…o a set of facts or actions to prove whether a reasonable person have come to the same conclusion or acted in the same way given the totality of the circumstances. 6.4 In this context, it is also relevant to note that in CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary [1995] 211 ITR 472, a Full Bench of the Patna High Court has interpreted the expression "reasonable cause", as follows: 'The word "reasonable cause" has not been defined under the Act but it could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression "sufficient cause". Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the word "reasonable cause" woul…

State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Kanpur vs. ACIT(TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 487/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

…a set of facts or actions to prove whether a reasonable person have come to the same conclusion or acted in the same way given the totality of the circumstances. 6.4 In this context, it is also relevant to note that in CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary [1995] 211 ITR 472, a Full Bench of the Patna High Court has interpreted the expression "reasonable cause", as follows: 'The word "reasonable cause" has not been defined under the Act but it could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression "sufficient cause". Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the word "reasonable cause" wou…

Ranjeet Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 5 (5), Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

…request for virtual mode was not made and if the same was not asked for it could not have been granted. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs. Sri Jagdish Prasad Choudhary [1995] 211 ITR 472 (Patna)[19-05-1994] in this regard. As regards notice u/s 143(2) of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in his order in para 7.1.1 (supra) that if no return was filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act there was no requirement of Page 13 of 19 I.T.A. No.: 304/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh. issuing any notic…

M/S Oriental Metals India Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Circle 1, Kochi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 941/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Vijayakrishnan R. NairFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.941/Coch/2022: Asst.Year:2017-2018 Oriental Metals India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT, Corporate Ward -2(1) 47-1577, Aluminium Hypermart Central Revenue Building vs. NH Byepass, Thammanam I.S. Press Road Vysali Junction Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682032 [PAN: AABCO1875H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri.Vijayakrishnan R. Nair Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Date of Hearing : 23.11.2023 Pronouncement: 25.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by Assessee direc…

Smt. Anita Awasthi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward - 3(5), Sonebhadra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 243/VNS/2019[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi03 Jun 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Anita Awasthi, Ito, Ward-3(5), 1142, Block-36, V. Income Tax Office, Sonebhadra, Rangoli Gardens, Uttar Pradesh Kanakpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302021 Pan:Acbpa9520E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

…egard on following judicial pronouncements. 1. Balram Kumar Mahendra v. Income Tax Officer [2012)121 taxmann.com222 [Delhi Tribunal] 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Anita Awasthi v. ITO, Ward 3(5), Sonebhadra, U.P. 2.CWT v. Sri Jagdish Prasad Choudhary (1995) 211 ITR 472 (Pat.) Copies of judgments cited above are annexed with this submission as annexure-A and annexure-B for your honour’s kind perusal. Prayer In view of above submission the appellant begs to submit that your honour may kindly be pleased to cancel the order of penalty passed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(b).” 5. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by…

Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3510/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 272ASection 272A(1)(c)Section 273B

…Orissa 83 ITR 26 C.I.T. v. Eli Lilly & Page 14 of 29 ITA Nos.- 3510 & 3511/Del/2012 Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. Co. (India) (P) Ltd. 178 Taxman 505 (SC) `C.I.T. v. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. 260 ITR 641 (Raj.) C.I.T. v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary 211 ITR 472 (Pat.) (F.B.) Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 252 ITR 471 In all the above mentioned judgment, it has been held that the penalty is not automatic if there are good and sufficient reasons for any failure. There is no justification in levying penalty. The appellant would also like t place reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in…

Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3511/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 272ASection 272A(1)(c)Section 273B

…Orissa 83 ITR 26 C.I.T. v. Eli Lilly & Page 14 of 29 ITA Nos.- 3510 & 3511/Del/2012 Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. Co. (India) (P) Ltd. 178 Taxman 505 (SC) `C.I.T. v. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. 260 ITR 641 (Raj.) C.I.T. v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary 211 ITR 472 (Pat.) (F.B.) Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 252 ITR 471 In all the above mentioned judgment, it has been held that the penalty is not automatic if there are good and sufficient reasons for any failure. There is no justification in levying penalty. The appellant would also like t place reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in…

CIT v. Jagdish Prasad\nChoudhary (211 ITR 472) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax