Keshu Ramsay v. JCIT

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

…of the assessment proceedings. The show cause notice was issued only after the therefore, hence the penalty in dispute is bad in law. ITAT Delhi In ITA No. 1861/DEL/2017 relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Keshu Ramsay vs JCIT reported at 5 SOT 9 (Mum): "wherein, it has been held that "Where no proceedings relevant to that assessment year is pending when penalty notice was issued, is bad in law. In view of above the penalty notice issued after completion of assessment proceedings may be held as illegal" 2. G.N. 2. TO 4 The appellant is a Salaried women. Details of Salary received by two Emplo…

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

…er section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation as assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was made on 30.03.2016. The first penalty notice was issued on 04.05.2016 and the penalty order was passed on 24.04.2017 which is barred by limitation as provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. As…

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

…er section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation as assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was made on 30.03.2016. The first penalty notice was issued on 04.05.2016 and the penalty order was passed on 24.04.2017 which is barred by limitation as provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. As…