CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal

275 ITR 113High Court2005#3095 most cited

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.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal · section 263 · penalty proceedings · assessment order erroneous · prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner jurisdiction · omission to initiate penalty · under-reporting of income · misreporting of income

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 270ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271F

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)assessment order erroneouspenalty u/s 270asection 271fsection 271aacsection 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialsection 271asection 271aasection 270section 270aconcealment of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 218/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 f…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 217/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 f…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 216/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 f…

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 f…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 f…

Coimbatore Vaiyapuri Maathesh, Coimbatore vs. The PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 373/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.373/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Coimbatore Vaiyapuri Maathesh, V. The Income Tax Officer, 85, Rajavignesh Nagar, Corporate Ward-2, Vilankurichi Main Road, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641 006. [Pan: Adepm 5864 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" एवं "ी अिनकेश बनज", माननीय "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.373/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Coimbatore Vaiyapuri Maathesh, v. The Income Tax Officer, 85, Rajavignesh Nagar, Corporate Ward-2, Vilankurichi Main Road, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641 006. [PAN: ADEPM 5864 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.S.Sridhar,…

Shri Vijay D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT-7, Ahmedabad

ITA 2022/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A. C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…sition to be sustained so far except expanding the scope of authority under S. 271(1)(c) to include administrative CIT within its ambit. 16. Before we proceed to conclude the issue, we also take note the decision in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal 275 ITR 113(All.); Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874(MP); RA Himmatsingka & Co. 340 ITR 253(Pat.); Sara Enterprises (Mad.) 224 ITR 169 etc. referred to and relied upon on behalf of the revenue. In all these cases, it was held that the CIT administration is entitled to invoke S. 263 to cancel the assessment where the penalty was either dropped or the…

Dwarka Prasad Jhawar, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -1, Mancherial

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 360/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Dwaraka Prasad Jhawar, Adilabad. Pan Aiupj 9582G …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial. …..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Yvst Sai. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2016-17 Arises From The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.30.03.2021 Passed In Case No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21 / 1031963437(1) In 2 Proceedings Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai. (D.R.)
Section 132A(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271A

…of the latter is alleged failure in initiating 271AAB penalty. Mr. Sai vehemently contended in support of the PCIT’s revision directions that such an inaction on the Assessing Officer’s part is very much exigible to 263 revision jurisdiction in view of (2005) 275 ITR 113 (Allahabad) CIT Vs.Sunder Prasad Agrawal. 3 4. We find no merit either in the PCIT’s revision direction nor in Revenue’s vehement contention in support thereof. There could hardly be any dispute about the settled legal proposition that an assessment has to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue before the CIT or the PCIT; a…

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)

…ition to be sustained so far except expanding the scope of authority under S. 271(1)(c) to include administrative CIT within its ambit. 16. Before we proceed to conclude the issue, we also take note the decision in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal 275 ITR 113(All.); Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874(MP); RA Himmatsingka & Co. 340 ITR 253(Pat.); Sara Enterprises (Mad.) 224 ITR 169 etc. referred to and relied upon on behalf of the revenue. In all these cases, it was held that the CIT administration is entitled to invoke S. 263 to cancel the assessment where the penalty was either dropped or the…

Omcon Reign Forest Projects, Visakhapatnam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 82/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the facts of the case relied upon 11 I.T.A. Nos.80-82/Viz/2018 M/s Omcon Reign Forest Projects, Visakhapatnam by the assessee are not applicable to the assessee's case. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 275 ITR 113 relied upon by the CIT held that non-initiation of penalty proceedings renders the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs, Ashok Construction Limited 280 ITR 368 of Allahabad High Court held that non-initiation of penalty u/s 271B of the Act render the order erroneous and prejudici…

Omcon Reign Forest Projects, Visakhapatnam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 81/VIZ/2018[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the facts of the case relied upon 11 I.T.A. Nos.80-82/Viz/2018 M/s Omcon Reign Forest Projects, Visakhapatnam by the assessee are not applicable to the assessee's case. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 275 ITR 113 relied upon by the CIT held that non-initiation of penalty proceedings renders the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs, Ashok Construction Limited 280 ITR 368 of Allahabad High Court held that non-initiation of penalty u/s 271B of the Act render the order erroneous and prejudici…

Jyoti Ranjan Roy, Kolkata vs. PCIT-17, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1015/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 25Section 250Section 251Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…us in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the ground that penalty proceeding was not initiated in the assessment order. In this regard, we find that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) reported in 275 ITR 113 (All) after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Talkies reported 200 ITR 153 (Del) as well as CIT vs. C.R. K. Swami reported in 254 ITR 158 (Del) has held that non initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order amounts to error causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue. The relevant e…

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)

…Jayesh V. Sheth proceedings during the course of assessment has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [275 ITR 113]. The Allahabad High Court held that omission of the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of assessment, rendered assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and Ld. Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise such an order u/s 263 of the Act. However, we find that this decision of the Allahaba…

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)

…Jayesh V. Sheth proceedings during the course of assessment has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [275 ITR 113]. The Allahabad High Court held that omission of the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of assessment, rendered assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and Ld. Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise such an order u/s 263 of the Act. However, we find that this decision of the Allahaba…

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)

…Jayesh V. Sheth proceedings during the course of assessment has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [275 ITR 113]. The Allahabad High Court held that omission of the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of assessment, rendered assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and Ld. Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise such an order u/s 263 of the Act. However, we find that this decision of the Allahaba…

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)

…initiate penalty proceedings during the course of assessment has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal [275 ITR 113]. The Allahabad High Court held that omission of the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of assessment, rendered assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and Ld. Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise such an order u/s 263 of the Act. However, we find that this decision of the Allahaba…

M/S. Enfield Gems & Jewellery Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-I, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 33/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 41(1)

…is not leviable. The ld. CIT has made reference and considered the following Judgments to arrive at the conclusion that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the case laws are reproduced below:- 1) CIT v. Surendra Praszad Agarwal 275 ITR 113 (All) ITA No.33/Kol/2015 A.Y.2012-13 M/s Enfield Gems & Jewellery Ltd. v. CIT-Centrl-I Kol. Page 4 2) ACIT vs. Saraya Distillery (1978) CTR 382 (All) 3) ACIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 19 CTR 302 (MP) 4) CIT vs. Cochin Malabar Estates Ltd (1974) 97 ITR 466 (Ker) 5) Singho Mica mining Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 231 (Cal) 6) C.A Abrham…

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

…ngs under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, in subsequent assessment order dated 16/12/2010 the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Surendra P. Agarwal, 275 ITR 113 in which it is held that failure of the AO to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of assessment proceedings will render the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In response to show cause notice issued in this regard the assessee relied on Circular No.2 of 2006 date 17/1/2006 in which it was clarified th…