CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.

149 ITR 751High Court1984#345 most cited

What is CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Minor defects or mistakes in a penalty notice issued under Section 274 do not invalidate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) if the assessee suffers no prejudice and is aware of the charge. However, significant vagueness or ambiguity that demonstrates non-application of mind or causes prejudice can still render the notice invalid.

248

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. · 149 ITR 751 · Section 274 · Section 271(1)(c) · defective penalty notice · validity of penalty proceedings · no prejudice to assessee · opportunity of show cause · awareness of charge · concealment of income penalty · inaccurate particulars

Sections most often in play

Section 274Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271AAB

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1b)section 274(1)deletion of penaltypenalty proceedings initiatedfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssection 274concealment of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 270levy of penalty

Judgments citing CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3054/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…oposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done. Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking off of inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice 2. In CIT v. Mithila Motors [1984] 16 Taxman 224/149 ITR 751 (Pat), relying on the decision in Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons v. Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC), wherein it was clarified that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings, it was held that even granting that the notice u/s. 274 was defective or bad in law, the penalty proceedings would not fail as no prejudice had…

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…validate the notice. The entire factual background would fall for consideration in the matter and no one aspect would be decisive. In this context, useful reference may be made to the following observation in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751. 57."… … .. 58. No doubt, there an exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under section 274. Take for example, the notice dated March 29, 1972, for the assessment year 1967-68. This show- cause n…

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…validate the notice. The entire factual background would fall for consideration in the matter and no one aspect would be decisive. In this context, useful reference may be made to the following observation in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751. 57."… … .. 58. No doubt, there an exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under section 274. Take for example, the notice dated March 29, 1972, for the assessment year 1967-68. This show- cause n…

SREE NAVALADIAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e case of CIT vs. Smt.Kaushalyal & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s.Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt. 22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8. Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/2016 9. Manjeet kaur saran Vs DCIT ITA No 2639 to 2643/del/2017 10. HPCL Mittal Energy Vs Addl CIT 97 Taxmnann.com 3 7.4.5 The Appellant has heavily relied on Hon'ble Madras High court decision in Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (2021) in sup…

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e case of CIT vs. Smt.Kaushalyal & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s.Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt. 22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8. Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/2016 9. Manjeet kaur saran Vs DCIT ITA No 2639 to 2643/del/2017 10. HPCL Mittal Energy Vs Addl CIT 97 Taxmnann.com 3 7.4.5 The Appellant has heavily relied on Hon'ble Madras High court decision in Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (2021) in sup…

SREENAVALADIAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRALCIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e case of CIT vs. Smt.Kaushalyal & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s.Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt. 22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8. Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/2016 9. Manjeet kaur saran Vs DCIT ITA No 2639 to 2643/del/2017 10. HPCL Mittal Energy Vs Addl CIT 97 Taxmnann.com 3 7.4.5 The Appellant has heavily relied on Hon'ble Madras High court decision in Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (2021) in sup…

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CENT CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e case of CIT vs. Smt.Kaushalyal & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s.Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt. 22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8. Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/2016 9. Manjeet kaur saran Vs DCIT ITA No 2639 to 2643/del/2017 10. HPCL Mittal Energy Vs Addl CIT 97 Taxmnann.com 3 7.4.5 The Appellant has heavily relied on Hon'ble Madras High court decision in Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (2021) in sup…

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…raj Garage & Co. v. CIT [2018] 400 ITR 292 (Bom)(rendered independent of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)), not considered by it in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra)); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT v. Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); Hajarilal Kishorilal v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 563 (MP). None of these decisions, based on fundamental principles of law, stand considered in the decisions in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra). Most of the decisions in the matter are prior to insertion of s. 292B. Though not a…

YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…ct in notice, assuming so, would not invalidate proceedings, but only make it irregular Vankata Narayana & Sons (supra);T.A. Abdul Khader v. CWT [2008] 296 ITR 20 (Ker); CIT vs. Maharaj Krishna [2000] 246 ITR 327 (Del); CIT vs. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); Hajarilal Kishorilal v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 563 (MP). The nature of the notice u/s. 274, and in the specific context of non-strike off of a limb under which the assessee’s case falls and, thus, not conveying the charge, stands in fact examined per several decisions viz. Manu Engineering Works(supra); Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (supra); CIT v.…

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…alidate the notice. The entire factual background would fall for consideration in the matter and no one aspect would be decisive. In this context, useful reference may be made to the following observation in the case of CIT vs. Mithila Motor's (P) Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR 751 (Patna)" (emphasis supplied) 6.4 On careful examination of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and also the other relevant decisions of the other Hon'ble Courts especially Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, on this issue, it is observed that in certain cases non- striking of the redundant words will vitiate the penalty proceedings,…

ATUL GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 28 , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 563/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 85/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. Arun Kumar Gupta, AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and…

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 84/RAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. Arun Kumar Gupta, AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and…

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 83/RAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. Arun Kumar Gupta, AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and…

M/S CHANDA MORE F.L.(ON) SHOP,ASANSOL vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 573/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

M/S JOB NEED SECURITY SERVICES,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O.,WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1679/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA Nos. 1678 & 1679/Kol/2019 M/s Job Need Security Services A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 1678 & 1679/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Job Need Security Services Vs. ITO, Ward-51(1), Kolkata (PAN: AAFFJ 2938 P ) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 19.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 06. 11.2020 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, CA For the Respondent Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT ORDER Per Shri A.T. Varkey, JM…

M/S JOB NEED SECURITY SERVICES,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O.,WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1678/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA Nos. 1678 & 1679/Kol/2019 M/s Job Need Security Services A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 1678 & 1679/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Job Need Security Services Vs. ITO, Ward-51(1), Kolkata (PAN: AAFFJ 2938 P ) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 19.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 06. 11.2020 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, CA For the Respondent Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT ORDER Per Shri A.T. Varkey, JM…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 71

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

VARUN FINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

ABHISHEK SINGHAL,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3((1), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

Showing 1–20 of 248 · Page 1 of 13

...
CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. (149 ITR 751) — Cited in 248 Judgments | BharatTax