What is CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal authority for?

The omission by an Income Tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings during the assessment, when there is an observation of under-reporting or mis-reporting of income, renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, granting the Commissioner jurisdiction to revise such an order under Section 263.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (275 ITR 113), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 270A, Section 148, Section 271(1)(c), Section 139, Section 143(3).

CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (275 ITR 113)

VAIBHAV BHARGAVA,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 270A

…teria the same. The Co-ordinate bench held as under :- “15. The learned PCIT, vide impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v/s Surender Prasad Agarwal, reported in [2005] 275 ITR 113 (All.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that omission of ITO to initiate penalty proceedings in course of assessment renders assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interests of the Revenue and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise such an order under section 263 of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Ch…

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…sment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power under s. 263-CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 (P&H) followed; CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 194 CTR (All) 161: (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All) dissented from." 9.6 Easy Transcription & Software (P) Ltd. (2017) 185 TTJ 504 (Ahd) "Revision- Jurisdiction of CIT-Jurisdiction to direct AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) It is not open to CIT to exercise the revisional powers to create a non- existent proceeding under s. 263by holding the assessment as erroneous in so…

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

…e aforesaid submission made on behalf of the assessee. 13. The learned PCIT, vide impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v/s Surender Prasad Agarwal, reported in [2005] 275 ITR 113 (All.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that omission of ITO to initiate penalty proceedings in course of assessment renders assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interests of the Revenue and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise such an order under section 263 of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Ch…

SINGANAMALA SARALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

…in his order for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act, although the order of penalty u/s.271D of the Act is not to be levied by the Ld. AO. Further, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All), she submitted that, if the Ld. AO has not recorded his satisfaction in assessment order, then the order of the Ld. AO become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the present case, the Ld. AO failed to record his satisfaction, hence, in accordance with the decisions of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and Hon'ble Al…

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

…ing of income by the assessee in the assessment order. 15. The learned PCIT, vide impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v/s Surender Prasad Agarwal, reported in [2005] 275 ITR 113 (All.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that omission of ITO to initiate penalty proceedings in course of assessment renders assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interests of the Revenue and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise such an order under section 263 of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Ch…

SAMIT ASHOK SONIMINDE,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainsamit Ashok Soniminde Vs. Ito – 4(2)(1) 2302 Solitaire, Adi Room No. 1704, 17Th Shankarachary Marg Floor Air India, Bldg, Powai, Mumbai – 400076. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aybps9158C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 263Section 270A

…ty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act, although, there is an observation of underreporting or misreporting of income. The PCIT had also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Surendra Prasad Aggarwal reported in [2005] 275 ITR 113 (Allahabad) and held that the revisionary powers can be exercised for 5 Samit Ashok Soniminde, Mumbai initiation of penalty proceedings. We find that although the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Surendra Prasad Aggarwal (supra), has uphold 263 order passed by the PCIT for initiation of penalty proceedings, but the jurisdictio…

JAYAPPA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 1 , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Jayappa Reddy No.1, Cholanayakanahalli R.T. Nagar Vs. Pcit Bangalore 560 032 Bengaluru-1 Bengaluru Pan No : Agapj9691E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Prathik, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Prathik, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…section 271(1)(C) rather a conscious decision as evident from the fact that the AO has levied penalty under section 271-F of the Act. 7. The ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue relied upon the judgment of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Aggrawal reported in 275 ITR 113 (All.) and contended that in that case also the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has affirmed the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in a case where penalty was not initiated by the AO. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We observe that in this case, the assessee has deposited the amount of tax on 3…

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

…ame. 8. We have heard ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that ld. PCIT (Central), Pune in his order has relied on following judgements passed by Hon’ble Courts such as :- (i) CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal, 275 ITR 113 (All.). 6 (ii) Addl.CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals, 123 ITR 874 (MP). (iii) Addl.CIT vs. Kantilal Jain, 125 ITR 373 (MP). (iv) Jyoti Ranjan Roy, vs. PCIT, ITA No.1015/Kol/2017. (v) CIT vs. Ashok Construction Company, 280 ITR 368 (All). (vi) CIT vs. Associated Contractors Corpn. 275 ITR 123 (All). 9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel of the assessee…

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

…Revenue. The facts that the AO has failed to initiate penalty under the correct provisions of the Act which amounts to non-initiation of penalty proceedings. As held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal reported in275 ITR 113, non-initiation of penalty in the assessment order, such assessment order is amenable for invoking provisions of section 263 by the CIT. Thus, the submissions of the AR are not acceptable in this respect. 9. Further submission of the AR that the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order which is pending and the powe…

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…ollowing is the legal position: Judgments in favour of Judgments which are against assessee assessee Judgment of Delhi High Court in Judgment of Allahabad High ACI Vs. JKD Costa reported in Court in CIT Vs. Surenda Prasad (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) Agarwal (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All) Judgment of Delhi High Court in Judgment of MP High Court in ACIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain ACIT Vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) (Del) Judgment of Rajasthan High Judgment of MP High Court in Court in CIT Vs. Keshrimal ACIT Vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 Parasmal reported in (1986) ITR 373 (MP) 157…

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…ollowing is the legal position: Judgments in favour of Judgments which are against assessee assessee Judgment of Delhi High Court in Judgment of Allahabad High ACI Vs. JKD Costa reported in Court in CIT Vs. Surenda Prasad (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) Agarwal (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All) Judgment of Delhi High Court in Judgment of MP High Court in ACIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain ACIT Vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) (Del) Judgment of Rajasthan High Judgment of MP High Court in Court in CIT Vs. Keshrimal ACIT Vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 Parasmal reported in (1986) ITR 373 (MP) 157…

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

…apply provisions of Section 263 of the Act. Hence the present appeal by the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue in support of its case has relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All). On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. D's Costa (1984) 147 ITR (St.) 1 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 Dhankot Filling Station (P&H), Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K.D' Costs (1982) 133 ITR 7 (De…