CIT v. ParmanandM.Patel

278 ITR 3High Court2005#3670 most cited

What is CIT v. ParmanandM.Patel authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) or section 273(2)(c) while exercising powers under section 263, as the CIT himself is not empowered to record the satisfaction for such penalties.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Parmanand M. Patel · section 263 · section 271(1)(a) · section 273(2)(c) · penalty proceedings · revision powers · Commissioner's satisfaction · Assessing Officer

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(a)Section 10BSection 139Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aacsection 271aasection 271aerroneous and prejudicialsection 270asection 263section 26section 144bsection 27section 271(1)(c)section 271

Judgments citing CIT v. ParmanandM.Patel

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…C),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co [257 ITR 0336] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 256 ITR 1 ](Dei. HC),  CIT vs. Sr. Suresh G. Shah [ 289ITR 110 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel [ 278 ITR 3 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation [ IT Ref. No. 15 of 2003 ] ( Guj. HC ),  R.Srinivasan vs. DCIT [ 29 taxmann.com 279 ]( Mad. HC), (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar  VishwaInfrawaysPvt. Ltd vs. CIT [ ITA 596,597 & 599/Pun/2015 ],  SreeAlankar vs. PCIT [ ITA no. 108/CTK/2018 ] ( CTK Trih.),  JRD Tata Trust t vs. DCST [ 122 tax…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…C),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co [257 ITR 0336] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 256 ITR 1 ](Dei. HC),  CIT vs. Sr. Suresh G. Shah [ 289ITR 110 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel [ 278 ITR 3 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation [ IT Ref. No. 15 of 2003 ] ( Guj. HC ),  R.Srinivasan vs. DCIT [ 29 taxmann.com 279 ]( Mad. HC), (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar  VishwaInfrawaysPvt. Ltd vs. CIT [ ITA 596,597 & 599/Pun/2015 ],  SreeAlankar vs. PCIT [ ITA no. 108/CTK/2018 ] ( CTK Trih.),  JRD Tata Trust t vs. DCST [ 122 tax…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…C),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co [257 ITR 0336] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 256 ITR 1 ](Dei. HC),  CIT vs. Sr. Suresh G. Shah [ 289ITR 110 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel [ 278 ITR 3 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation [ IT Ref. No. 15 of 2003 ] ( Guj. HC ),  R.Srinivasan vs. DCIT [ 29 taxmann.com 279 ]( Mad. HC), (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar  VishwaInfrawaysPvt. Ltd vs. CIT [ ITA 596,597 & 599/Pun/2015 ],  SreeAlankar vs. PCIT [ ITA no. 108/CTK/2018 ] ( CTK Trih.),  JRD Tata Trust t vs. DCST [ 122 tax…

Shri. K. Muniraju, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

ITA 1376/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Reddy, Standing Counsel to Dept. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…)(ia) of the Income Tax act, 1961 which could have been made in order passed u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Income. Tax Act, 1961. Such order is not an erroneous order as he has followed the Jurisdictional High Court judgment. 4. In CIT Vs Parmanand M Patel (2005) 278 ITR 3 (Guj) held that it is well settled that once an appeal has been preferred against an order of assessment, the entire assessment is open before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is entitled to do all that the Assessing Officer could have done. The powers of the appellate authority are co-extensive and co- terminus with the powers of t…

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/AHD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1232/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri P. B
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…n of penalty proceedings under S. 271(1)(c) or not. There are long line of judicial precedents on the issue both for and contra. The Hon’ble Gujarat High also had occasion to deal with the issue relevant to assessment year 1982-83 in CIT vs. Parmanad M. Patel 278 ITR 3 (2005) wherein the decision was rendered in favour of the assessee. Riding on the decision of the Hon’ble Gurarat High Court, the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in J. P. Construction vs. CIT ITA No. 1304/ Ahd./ 2009 order dated 24.07.2009 [ AY 2005-06] cancelled the action of the CIT under section 263 wherein the assessment order was set aside for f…

Mustafa Abdulla Arodia, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 31, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3624/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Mustafa Abdulla Arodia Vs. Pr. Cit-31, Dilaram Estate Mumbai S.V.Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400 062 Pan/Gir No.Aacpa1141Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 1Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ustafa Abdulla Arodia 1961 and thereby holding that dropping of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 17. Further it was held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel (278 ITR 3) that the CIT is not empowered to record satisfaction by invoking s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and if he is not entitled to do so, on his own, he cannot do it by directing the assessing authority. The Court observed that in other words, what the CIT himself cannot do. he cannot get it done through the assessing authority by exercising revisional powers.…

Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3596/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala Pr. Commissioner Of 2/5, Ai Hasnat Chs Income Tax-25 Off S R Marg (West End) C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. North South Road, 10Th Road Bandra Kurla Complex Jvpd, Mumbai-400 049 (East), Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aabpr1985J

For Appellant: Sanjay C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Jacinta zimik vashai, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54E

…of the Act can direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, this issue 4 Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala.(AY 11-12) is clearly covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parmanand M Patel (278 ITR 3); Hon’ble Punjay & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (335 ITR 364) and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sterling Construction and Investments vs. ACIT(Inv) (374 ITR 474). Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Sterling Construction and Investments (supra) has held as under: - 19. As noticed earlier, the…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…f the Act. We find similar issue has come up in the case of Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT in ITA.No.1624/Mum/2014 dated 23.03.2017 and the Coordinate Bench following decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Paramanand M Patel [278 ITR 3] and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain [335 ITR 364] set aside the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4. We have heard the rival submissions, perus…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…f the Act. We find similar issue has come up in the case of Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT in ITA.No.1624/Mum/2014 dated 23.03.2017 and the Coordinate Bench following decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Paramanand M Patel [278 ITR 3] and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain [335 ITR 364] set aside the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4. We have heard the rival submissions, perus…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3920/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…f the Act. We find similar issue has come up in the case of Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT in ITA.No.1624/Mum/2014 dated 23.03.2017 and the Coordinate Bench following decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Paramanand M Patel [278 ITR 3] and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain [335 ITR 364] set aside the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:- “4. We have heard the rival submissions, perus…

Dharmanandan Diamonds P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1624/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri C.N. Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralghawalaFor Respondent: Shri Tufail Ahmad Khan
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, he submits that the Ld. Commissioner has no power to set aside the assessment order to initiate penalty proceedings. For this proposition he placed reliance on the following decisions : 1) CIT Vs. Paramanand M Patel [278 ITR 3 (Guj)] 2) CIT Vs. Subhash Kumar Jain [335 ITR 364 (P&H)] 3. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ld. Commissioner in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 M/s. Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd ITA No.1624/Mum/2014, A…

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…of such a satisfaction in the assessment order could not invalidate it. It was held that Ld. CIT was wrong in invoking the provisions of section 263. 4.2 Ld. AR further mentioned to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Parmanand M. Patel, 278 ITR 3, wherein even considering the decision relied upon by Ld. CIT [Surendra P. Agarwal(supra)] it was held that the initiation of penalty is under the exclusive domain of AO and Ld. CIT is not empowered to record satisfaction by invoking section 271(1)(c) and if he is not entitled to do so on his own, he cannot do it by directing the AO to initiate the…