CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore

352 ITR 327High Court2013#3016 most cited

What is CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore authority for?

Penalty orders under sections 271D and 271E passed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the assessment was completed are barred by limitation. Section 275(1)(c) is applicable to such cases, and the limitation period is not reckoned from the date of the show-cause notice.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore · Section 271D · Section 271E · Section 275 · Section 275(1)(c) · penalty limitation · show cause notice · assessment completion date

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 269TSection 271ESection 275Section 269SSSection 153ASection 143Section 275(1)(c)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)penalty under section 271esection 275(1)(c)section 245hsection 269tsection 275section 261section 271erevision under section 263section 129section 143(l)(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 270/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…e month in which the assessments were completed were barred by limitation-CIT v. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 211 CTR (Raj) 156 affirmed." Similar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 31 taxmann.com 52/352 ITR 327 wherein it was held under: "Penalty under s. 271D-Limitation under s. 275-Applicability of d (a) or cl. (c) of s. 275(1)- Show-cause notice was served on the assessee by AO on 27th March, 2003-Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Jt. CIT on 22nd March, 2004-Penalty levied by Jt. CIT by order dt. 28th May, 2004 was clearly barred by limitat…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 268/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…e month in which the assessments were completed were barred by limitation-CIT v. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 211 CTR (Raj) 156 affirmed." Similar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 31 taxmann.com 52/352 ITR 327 wherein it was held under: "Penalty under s. 271D-Limitation under s. 275-Applicability of d (a) or cl. (c) of s. 275(1)- Show-cause notice was served on the assessee by AO on 27th March, 2003-Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Jt. CIT on 22nd March, 2004-Penalty levied by Jt. CIT by order dt. 28th May, 2004 was clearly barred by limitat…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…date of proposal sent by the AO or the date of assessment order. The appellant placed reliance on the decision of High Court Of Rajasthan in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur v. Jitendra Singh Rathore (2013) 31 taxmann.com 52 (Rajasthan)/[2013] 352 ITR 327 (Rajasthan)/[2013] 257 CTR 18 (Rajasthan) [10-01-2013) Hon'ble High Court in that case held as under- "In the present case, the first show cause notice for initiation of proceedings was issued by the Assessing Officer on 25-3-2003 and was served on the assessee on 27-3-2003 Obviously, the later period also expired on 30-9-2003 when six months ex…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ITO-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ot valid and liable to be quashed. He has also relied upon following decisions: (i)Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 (All.) (ii)Jagdish Chandra Suwalka vs JCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) JCIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 352 ITR 327(Raj) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. Addl. CIT-Range-3, Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ot valid and liable to be quashed. He has also relied upon following decisions: (i)Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 (All.) (ii)Jagdish Chandra Suwalka vs JCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) JCIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 352 ITR 327(Raj) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…ot valid and liable to be quashed. He has also relied upon following decisions: (i)Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 (All.) (ii)Jagdish Chandra Suwalka vs JCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) JCIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 352 ITR 327(Raj) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad.). (viii) Shreenath Builders v. Dy. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 142 (Mag.) 7…

Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

…the end of the month in which the assessments were completed were barred by limitation-CIT vs. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 211 CTR (Raj) 156 affirmed." Similar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the JCIT Vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 352 ITR 327(Raj), wherein it was held under: "Penalty under s. 271D-Limitation under s. 275-Applicability of cl (a) or cl. (c) of s. 275(1)-Show-cause notice was served on the assessee by AO on 27th March, 2003-Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Jt. CIT on 22nd March, 2004- Penalty levied by Jt. CIT by order dt. 28th May, 2004 was clearly barred by…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13
Section 271D

…go into other aspects. Leaving the other questions of law open, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 32.2. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore (2013) 352 ITR 327 M/s. Sanathnagar Enterprises Ltd., (Raj). In this case also similar proposition was laid down in favour of assessee. 33. We have considered the propositions argued by both the sides and noted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hissaria Brothers (supra), which was ultimately affirmed…

Suparshwa Constructions, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 3083/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Haria (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 279S

…submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: 1. Pr.CIT v. Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd. [(2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi)]. 2. Pr.CIT v JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd [(2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi)]. 3. CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [(2013) 352 ITR 327 (Rajasthan)]. 4. CIT v. Narayani & Song (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 73 taxmann.com 21 (Calcutta)]. 5. Lodha Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 34 ITR(T) 157 (Mum. Trib.). 6. M.D.S University v. ACIT [(2014) 49 taxmann.com 297 (Jaipur-Trib.)]. 7. ACIT v. Smt. Meetu Agarwal [(2015) 42 ITR(T) 520 (Lucknow-Trib.). 10. In alternative proposition, the ld. AR of th…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Galaxy Premises P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7129/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…assessment itself (assessment dated 5.12.2011) (para 6 extracted above), the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT on 28.9.2012 is barred by limitation of time. Assessee relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore [352 ITR 327] (Raj). However, CIT (A) did not considered the said judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court. Instead, he relied on the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Dewan Chand Amit Lal [283 ITR (AT) 203]. In the said judgment, the Special Bench held that the „limitation‟ does not commence from the date of the show cause notice issued by…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Galaxy Premises P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…assessment itself (assessment dated 5.12.2011) (para 6 extracted above), the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT on 28.9.2012 is barred by limitation of time. Assessee relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore [352 ITR 327] (Raj). However, CIT (A) did not considered the said judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court. Instead, he relied on the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Dewan Chand Amit Lal [283 ITR (AT) 203]. In the said judgment, the Special Bench held that the „limitation‟ does not commence from the date of the show cause notice issued by…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Galaxy Premises P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7127/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…assessment itself (assessment dated 5.12.2011) (para 6 extracted above), the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT on 28.9.2012 is barred by limitation of time. Assessee relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore [352 ITR 327] (Raj). However, CIT (A) did not considered the said judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court. Instead, he relied on the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Dewan Chand Amit Lal [283 ITR (AT) 203]. In the said judgment, the Special Bench held that the „limitation‟ does not commence from the date of the show cause notice issued by…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Galaxy Premises P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7126/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…assessment itself (assessment dated 5.12.2011) (para 6 extracted above), the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT on 28.9.2012 is barred by limitation of time. Assessee relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore [352 ITR 327] (Raj). However, CIT (A) did not considered the said judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court. Instead, he relied on the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Dewan Chand Amit Lal [283 ITR (AT) 203]. In the said judgment, the Special Bench held that the „limitation‟ does not commence from the date of the show cause notice issued by…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Galaxy Premises P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7125/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…assessment itself (assessment dated 5.12.2011) (para 6 extracted above), the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT on 28.9.2012 is barred by limitation of time. Assessee relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore [352 ITR 327] (Raj). However, CIT (A) did not considered the said judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court. Instead, he relied on the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Dewan Chand Amit Lal [283 ITR (AT) 203]. In the said judgment, the Special Bench held that the „limitation‟ does not commence from the date of the show cause notice issued by…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Galaxy Premises P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7124/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…assessment itself (assessment dated 5.12.2011) (para 6 extracted above), the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT on 28.9.2012 is barred by limitation of time. Assessee relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore [352 ITR 327] (Raj). However, CIT (A) did not considered the said judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court. Instead, he relied on the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Dewan Chand Amit Lal [283 ITR (AT) 203]. In the said judgment, the Special Bench held that the „limitation‟ does not commence from the date of the show cause notice issued by…

ITO, Ward-29(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Auto Care, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…taken by the learned Tribunal should be reversed and the appeal should be allowed. Mr. Khaitan, Learned senior advocate, appearing for the assessee drew our attention to a judgment of the Court in the case of CIT Vs Jitendra Singh Rathore reported in (2013) 352 ITR 327 wherein the following views were taken:- “In the present case, the first show-cause notice for initiation of proceedings was issued by the Assessing Officer on March 25, 2003, and was served on the assessee on March 27, 2003. Obviously, the later period also expired on September 30, 2003 when six months expired from the end of the month in which…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Prashant Sharma, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenues are dismissed

ITA 960/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Vrindera Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 960/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Income Tax Officer, Shri Prashant Sharma, Vs. Ward-4(4), A-34, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS4515D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 961/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Income Tax Officer, Shri Prashant Sharma, Vs. Ward-4…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…ed contentions of the ld. DR and also placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ashwani Kumar Vs. ITO reported at 118 TTJ 483 [Del], the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore 352 ITR 327 [Raj] and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chajjer Packaging & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 206 Taxmann 690 [Bombay] and submitted that in the penalty proceedings, the time limit prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act has to be completed either with the F.Y. of its germination or six months or the end of the month in which t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2765/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…ed contentions of the ld. DR and also placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ashwani Kumar Vs. ITO reported at 118 TTJ 483 [Del], the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore 352 ITR 327 [Raj] and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chajjer Packaging & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 206 Taxmann 690 [Bombay] and submitted that in the penalty proceedings, the time limit prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act has to be completed either with the F.Y. of its germination or six months or the end of the month in which t…