D.M. Manasvi v. CIT

86 ITR 557Supreme Court of India1972#3294 most cited

What is D.M. Manasvi v. CIT authority for?

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) can only be initiated if the Assessing Officer (AO) is satisfied about the existence of conditions specified in the relevant clauses during the assessment proceedings. This satisfaction must precede the conclusion of assessment proceedings and the issuance of a notice.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

D.M. Manasvi v. CIT · 86 ITR 557 · SC · section 271(1)(c) · penalty proceedings · initiation of penalty · satisfaction of AO · assessment proceedings · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · S.V. Angidi Chettiar

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(5)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 276cdeletion of penaltypenalty proceedings initiatedsection 57(iii)section 244afurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsappeal before cit(a)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)service of noticelevy of penaltysection 271(1)

Judgments citing D.M. Manasvi v. CIT

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…facie, of the assessing (or other authority imposing penalty), that the assessee does not have a proper, duly substantiated, explanation with regard to the facts material to the computation of his total income under the Act (refer: D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC); CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC)), which (satisfaction) may not even be reduced in writing, though ought to be discernible from the record in any proceedings under the Act (refer: Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC)). The jurisdiction stands validly assumed in th…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…facie, of the assessing (or other authority imposing penalty), that the assessee does not have a proper, duly substantiated, explanation with regard to the facts material to the computation of his total income under the Act (refer: D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC); CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC)), which (satisfaction) may not even be reduced in writing, though ought to be discernible from the record in any proceedings under the Act (refer: Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC)). There is no issue as regards the said jurisdi…

Arun Ravindranath Sawhney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7192/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Anadi Varma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…income indicating clearly that the Income-tax Officer was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceeding that the firm had concealed its income.” Further, this decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed in the decision of D M Manasvi Vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), wherein also the same position was reiterated by holding as under: - “The fact that notices were issued subsequent to the making of the assessment orders would not, in our opinion, show, that there was no satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer during the assessment proceedings that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or…

Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Trilok Chand Chaudhary Vs Acit 39, Gadai Pur, Mehrauli, Central Circle -26 New Delhi-110030 New Delhi Pan : Aaepc0683P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Pranshu Goel, Ca Assessee By: Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2018 Order Per Diva Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Sh.Pranshu Goel, CA
Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…id down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT v. S.V. AngidiChettiar (supra) and{ held as under: "The legal position is well-settled in view of the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT v. S.V. AngidiChettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 and P.M. Manasvi v. CIT [19721 86 ITR 557 (SC), that power to impose penalty under section 271 depends upon the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of…

ITO, Ward-29(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Auto Care, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…le exceeding a sum of Rs. 1000/-, the Assessing Officer could initiate the proceedings by issuing a notice. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Their Lordships in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. C.I.T., Gujarat. reported in [1972] 86 ITR 557, held as follows: “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income-tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of the Act. The proceedings for the imposition o…

M/S Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…tion (1) of section 271. The notice under section 274 was to follow. What was important was that “satisfaction” had to be arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings and not issuance of notice under section 274 of the Act. (See D. M. Manasvi [1972] 86 ITR 557 and S. V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739.’ Further, this understanding, it may be further noted, is and only understandably, without reference, to the subsequent decisions by the Apex Court in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Atul Mohan Bindal (supra). In fact, the said decisions by the Apex Court are themselves without reference to section 271(…

M/S Aditya Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 1997-98] Aditya Chemicals Ltd Vs. The I.T.O C/O Rra Tax India Company Ward-1(2) D -28, South Extn. Part - 1 New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aaaca 2835 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Tanena, Adv Shri Acrhit Rehan, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Tanena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nalty as evident from the assessment order. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law for this reason also in view of following judgments of jurisdictional Court: CIT v. Madhu Shree Gupta 317 ITR 107 (Del) (CLC Pg no. 81-99) D.M. Manasvi v. CIT 86 ITR 557 (SC) CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar 44 ITR 739 (SC) CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568 (Del) (CLC Page no. 100-103) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT 246 ITR 571(Del) (CLC Pg no. 104-111) CIT vs Munish Iron Store 63 ITR 484 (P&H) Global Green Company Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No.1390/Del/2011 AY 2001-02, ITAT Delhi M/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. v…

Avadh Narayan K Yadav, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 991/MUM/2015[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

…y the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Dajibhai Kanjibhai (1991) 189 ITR 41 (Bom). 7 9.In our opinion, the legal position is well settled in view of the Supreme Court decisions in CIT & Anr. vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) and D.M. Manasvi (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), that power to impose penalty under s. 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the ITO in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified in cls. (a), (b) and (c) before the proceedings are concluded. It is…

P. Ramesh Kumar, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Salem

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

ITA 3136/CHNY/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…nvolving penalty imposable exceeding a sum of Rs.1000, the AO could initiate the proceedings by issuing a notice. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Their Lordships in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437: (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), held as follows: “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the ITO but by the IAC when the matter had been referred to him under s. 274(2) of the Act. The proceedings for the imposition of penalty in terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 ha…

P. Ramesh Kumar, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Salem

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

ITA 3135/CHNY/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…nvolving penalty imposable exceeding a sum of Rs.1000, the AO could initiate the proceedings by issuing a notice. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Their Lordships in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437: (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), held as follows: “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the ITO but by the IAC when the matter had been referred to him under s. 274(2) of the Act. The proceedings for the imposition of penalty in terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 ha…

P. Ramesh Kumar, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Salem

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

ITA 3134/CHNY/2016[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…nvolving penalty imposable exceeding a sum of Rs.1000, the AO could initiate the proceedings by issuing a notice. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Their Lordships in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437: (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), held as follows: “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the ITO but by the IAC when the matter had been referred to him under s. 274(2) of the Act. The proceedings for the imposition of penalty in terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 ha…

P. Ramesh Kumar, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Salem

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

ITA 3133/CHNY/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…nvolving penalty imposable exceeding a sum of Rs.1000, the AO could initiate the proceedings by issuing a notice. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Their Lordships in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437: (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), held as follows: “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the ITO but by the IAC when the matter had been referred to him under s. 274(2) of the Act. The proceedings for the imposition of penalty in terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 ha…

P. Ramesh Kumar, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Salem

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

ITA 3132/CHNY/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 1Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 275

…nvolving penalty imposable exceeding a sum of Rs.1000, the AO could initiate the proceedings by issuing a notice. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Their Lordships in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437: (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), held as follows: “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the ITO but by the IAC when the matter had been referred to him under s. 274(2) of the Act. The proceedings for the imposition of penalty in terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 ha…

ITO, Ward - 2, Suri, Birbhum vs. M/S. Hotel Tara, Birbhum

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 153CSection 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(11)(c)Section 271A

…s. Vs. CIT 283 ITR 230 (Mad). The ld. DR also relied in the order of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Nainu Mal Het Chand Vs. CIT 294 ITR 185 (All). The ld. DR also relied in the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT 86 ITR 557 (SC). He vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we find that the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act by the AO for levying of the penalty is defective in so far it does not spell out the specific charge for penalty. The s…

Chennakesava Pharmaceuticals Vijayawada vs. The Comi.of Incometax Vij

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

ITTA/31/2000HC Telangana27 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: :Sri AV KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri J.V.Prasad
Section 133Section 143Section 260Section 271

…and after considering the decision in Manasvi’s case (14 supra ), held as follows: “In our opinion, the legal position is well settled in view of the Supreme Court decisions in CIT Vs. S.V.Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) and D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), that power to impose penalty under Section 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-Tax Officer in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It can not be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) before the proceedi…

Sunil Dua vs. Income Tax

ITA/1492/2010HC Delhi29 Sept 2010
Section 132Section 132ASection 142Section 158BSection 260A

…lied) 6. In any event, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that it is not mandatory in law that a notice regarding levy of penalty needs to be issued along with the assessment order. In fact, the Supreme Court in D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT, 86 ITR 557 and Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Angidi Chettiar, 44 ITR 739 has held that issuance of a notice under Section 158BFA of the Act is a consequence of the satisfaction of the authority levying the penalty and it would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of Statute if the authority is satisfied about the material referred in the sectio…