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

149 ITR 751High Court1984#347 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 366,470 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.

The Burdwan Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Burdwan

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2407/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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

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

…ase of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble 4 The Burdwan Central Co-op. Bank, AY 2010-11 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. Ray & Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 381/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & 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 4 M/s. Ray & Ray, AY- 2012-13 had to meet and was give…

Sri Radhashyam Mondal, 24 Parganas (South) vs. ITO, Ward - 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 225/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

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

…Y 2013-14 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.…

Satya Narayan Sharma, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 162/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & 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.…

M/S. S.S. Udyog, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am] I.T.A. No. 1020/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. S.S. Udyog Vs. Ito, Ward 48(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aasfs 6167 Q] Appellant Respondent

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.…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Rajgaria Timbers Privtate Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1470/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

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

…ctory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble 4 ITA Nos. 1469-1470/Kol/2017 M/s. Rajgaria Timbers Pvt. Ltd, AYs. 2011-12-2012-13 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.…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Rajgaria Timbers Privtate Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1469/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

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

…ctory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble 4 ITA Nos. 1469-1470/Kol/2017 M/s. Rajgaria Timbers Pvt. Ltd, AYs. 2011-12-2012-13 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.…

Sri Sukhendu Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 55(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 966/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 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.…

Pawan Kumar Modi, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 49(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 950/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 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.…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…i.e., the legal impact of the non-specification of the limb of sec.271(1)(c) in the notice u/s. 274, there are several decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts, as in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj); CIT vs. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT vs. Kaushalya & Ors. [1994] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), holding it to be of little consequence, also clarifying the import of the notice u/s. 274. Again, it may be noted that these decisions are either under the 1922 Act or prior to the insertion of section 292B on the statute-book w.e.f. 1/10/1975 savi…

Navin Kumar Ladha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Vs Navin Kumar Ladha, Ito, 121, N.S.Road, 3Rd Floor, Room Ward-35(2), No.29, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaxpl1537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Sankar Halder, Jcit Date Of Hearing 06.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By Cit(A)-10, Kolkata For Ay 2014-15 Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”). 2. The Ld.Ar Submits That The Issue Raised In The Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. He Also Submits That The Ao Imposed Penalty On Defective Notice Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On 27-12-2016, Copy Of The Same Is On Record At Page No.1 Of Paper Book & In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Supra The Imposition Of Penalty On Defective Is Not Maintainable. 3. The Ld.Ar, Further Submits That The Statutory Notice Dt. 27-12- 2016 Issued By The Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 Of The Act Is Defective & By Placing Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble [Assessment Year: 2014-15]

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2014-15] vs Navin Kumar Ladha, ITO, 121, N.S.Road, 3rd Floor, Room Ward-35(2), No.29, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. PAN-AAXPL1537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Sankar Halder, JCIT Date of Hearing 06.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 14.12.2018 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.12.2017 passed by CIT(A)-10, Kolkata for AY 2014-15 where…

Satyanam Baksh Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Satyanam Baksh Singh, Ito, C/O-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ward-43(3), 3, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Govt. Place Kolkata-700019. West, Kolkata- Pan-Albps1198R 700001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A. Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S. Halder, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By Cit(A)- 13, Kolkata For Ay 2010-11 Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”). 2. The Ld.Ar Submits That The Issue Raised In The Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. He Also Submits That The Ao Imposed Penalty On Defective Notice Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On 31-12-2012, Copy Of The Same Is On Record At Page No.1 Of Paper Book & In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Supra The Imposition Of Penalty On Defective Is Not Maintainable. 3. The Ld.Ar, Further Submits That The Statutory Notice Dt. 31-12- 2012 Issued By The Ito, Ward-42(3), Kolkata U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 Of The Act Is Defective & By Placing Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Ssa’S Emerald Meadows Supra In Ita No. 380 Of 2015 Dated 23.11.2015 Which Was Affirmed By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court By Dismissal Of Special Leave Petition (Slp)

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.…

M/S. Danish Music Corner, Kolkata vs. ITO - 31(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2233/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Vs M/S. Danish Music Corner, Ito, 7 Lenin Sarani, Ward-31(1), 10 B, Kolkata-700013. Middle Ton Row, 4Th Pan-Aadfd1476C Floor, Room No.-4, 5, Kolkata-700071. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. B.K.Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Sankar Halder, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2017 Passed By Cit(A)-9, Kolkata For Ay 2012-13 Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”). 2. The Ld.Ar Submits That The Issue Raised In The Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. He Also Submits That The Ao Imposed Penalty On Defective Notice Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On 23-03-2015, Copy Of The Same Is On Record At Page No.1 Of Paper Book & In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Supra The Imposition Of Penalty On Defective Is Not Maintainable. 3. The Ld.Ar, Further Submits That The Statutory Notice Dt. 23-03- 2015 Issued By The Ito, Ward-31(1), Kolkata U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 Of The [Assessment Year: 2012-13]

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.…

M/S. Precision Transmision Chain, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 24(2), Hooghly

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

ITA 158/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Halder,ld.Sr.DR
Section 263Section 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.…

Romit Mitra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 24, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 600/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Romit Mitra -Vs- Acit, Circle-24, Kolkata. [Pan: Adppm 1678 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.M Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
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.…

M/S. Dawsen Infotech (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravim/S. Dawsen Infotech (P.) Ltd., Dcit, Vs 2, Hare Street, Nicco House, 5Th Circle-6, P-7, Floor, Kolkata-700001. Chowringhee Square, Pan-Aabcd3435E Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Soumitra Choudhary, Adv. Respondent By Sh. C.J.Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2018

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

…ITA No.16/KOL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Dawsen Infotech (P.) Ltd., DCIT, vs 2, Hare Street, Nicco House, 5th Circle-6, P-7, Floor, Kolkata-700001. Chowringhee Square, PAN-AABCD3435E Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Soumitra Choudhary, Adv. Respondent by Sh. C.J.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2018 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee agains…

M/S. New Life Sonoscan Centre, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 24(2), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S. New Life Sonoscan Centre, Ito, Ward-24(2), V Aayakar Bhawan, New Hospital Road, Akhan Bazar, S Khadina More, P.O- P.O.Chinsurah, Distt.-Hooghly. Chinsurah, Distt.- Hooghly, Pin- Pan-Aaefn8996N 712101. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subash Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. C.J.Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 Order

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 Yashvardhan Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1676/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Yashvardhan Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-44, Kolkata. [Pan: Afapm 0724 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
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.…

Vinay Kumar Goenka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

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.…

ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Raghunandan Mody, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1611/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.1611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata -Vs.- Shri Radhunandan Mody [Pan :Aexpm 8474 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr For The Appellant For The Respondent : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018. Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
Section 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.…