CIT v. S. Gowri

417 ITR 45High Court2019#15828 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Gowri

Smt. Rekha Agarwal (Legal Heir and Wife of Late Sh. Girish Chand Agarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 28(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2199/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c)

…t for his heavenly abode way back on 29.08.2014. And that the learned Assessing Officer had passed his impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty order on 17.03.2022. 4. This being the clinching fact emerging from the case file, I hereby quote CIT v/s S. Gowri (2019) 417 ITR 45 (Madras) that such a penalty ought to be levied in an assessee’s lifetime only, to delete the same. Ordered accordingly. 5. This appellant’s/deceased assessee’s legal representative, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18 December, 2024. *aks/-…

Mrs. Beant Kaur Juneja, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 18/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 018/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Hp Petrol Pump, Dosar Bhavan, C. A. Road, Nagpur-440002. Pan: Aflpj2956E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274(1)Section 44A

…rimant FB Gaekwad’ [2008, 313 ITR 192 Gujarat], ‘CIT Vs Dr. K.C.G. Verghese’ [2018, 92 taxmann.com 400 & 2019, 416 ITR 155 (Mad.] which followed in ‘CIT Vs Smt S ITAT-Nagpur Page 3 of 6 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Vs ITO. Gowri’ [2020, 116 taxmann.com 764 & 417 ITR 45, Madras], wherein it has been categorically held that, penalty proceedings could not initiated and concluded against the legal representative of the deceased assessee. The former ratio however cannot come to rescue the cases falling in the latter category. 6. Let us first analyse the provisions of section 159 of the Act which talks about the liab…

Late Jayant Maneklal Wagle (L/H Rajlaxmi D Parulkar), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1018/PUN/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshaliassessment Year 2005-2006 Late Jayant Maneklal The Acit, Circle-2, Wagle Through L/H Mrs. Room No.106, B-Wing, Rajlaxmi Dilip Parulkar, Pmt Commercial B-9, Varsha Park, Baner, Vs Complex, Shankarshet Pune – 411 045 Road, Swargate, State Of Maharashtra. Pune – 411 037. Pan Aaqpw7659H State Of Maharashtra Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 159Section 159(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…rise to recovery of tax demands and therefore, the assessee’s legal representatives are liable for the corresponding default u/sec.271(1)(c) in light of sec.159(1) to (6) of the Act. 4. We find that the instant issue is no more res integra in light of [2019] 417 ITR 45 (Madras) CIT vs. Gowri decided against the department, as upheld in SLP (Civil) No.26378/2019 dated 23.08.2019 before the hon’ble apex 3 ITA.No.1018/PUN/2023 court. Their lordships hold in very clear terms that an assessee’s legal representatives are not liable in penalty proceedings after his/her demise in terms of sec.159 of the Act. We adopt t…

Late Kadir Usman Shaikh Legal Heir Smt. Bilkis K. Shaikh, Late Kadir U. Shaikh, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, (Central) -II, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1116/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shir Inturi Rama Rao

Section 159Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. Suffice to say, the assessee herein Shri Kadir Usman Shaikh appears to have expired well before the Assessing Officer’s penalty order dated 28.03.2014. That being the case, we quote CIT vs. S.Gouri [2019] 417 ITR 45(Madras) to hold that the impugned penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is not maintainable against the assessee’s legal heir herein under section 159 of the Act. We therefore delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. O…

Deepak Jaybhagwan Agarwak, L/H of Shri Jaybhagwan Sadhuram Agarwal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 8(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1037/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Deepak Jaybhagwan Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward L/H Of Shri Jaybhagwan Sadhuram 8(1), Pune Agarwal 212, Agarwal Niwas, Gawali Nagar, Bhosari, Pune – 411026 Pan : Aanpa4880H Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

…e suggests at the outset that the original assessee herein Shri Jaybhagwan Sadhuram Agarwal had expired on 05.02.2015 whereas the Assessing Officer‟s penalty proceedings stood finalized on 30.09.2016. That being the case, we quote CIT vs. Smt. S. Gowri (2019) 417 ITR 45 (Mad) that pending penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer do not survive after on an assessee‟s demise. Faced with this situation, Mr. Jasanani vehemently argued that both the learned lower authorities have rightly imposed the impugned penalty after holding the assessee to have concealed his taxable income which could be unearthed only d…

Legal Heir of Late Kusum D. Pandit, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-

ITA 4590/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Devendra S. Pandit, The Commissioner Of Income The Legal Heir Of Late Smt. Tax (A)-31, Kusum D. Pandit, Pratkshyakar Bhavan, C-10, C/O D.C. Bothra & Co. (Ca), 297, Vs. R.N. 706, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Bkc, Bandra (East), 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Mumbai - 400051 Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Amypp6516E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Singh (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita (Dr ) Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2020

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Singh (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita (DR )
Section 143Section 251Section 271Section 274Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VP) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Devendra S. Pandit, The Commissioner of Income the Legal Heir of Late Smt. Tax (A)-31, Kusum D. Pandit, Pratkshyakar Bhavan, C-10, C/o D.C. Bothra & Co. (CA), 297, Vs. R.N. 706, 7th Floor, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, BKC, Bandra (East), 1st Floor, Opp. Bank of India, Mumbai - 400051 Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 PAN: AMYPP6516E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar Singh (AR) Revenue by : Ms. Kavita (DR ) Date of Hearing: 09/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement…