L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Mahewa Branch, Sagar vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Mandi Bamora Branch, Jabalpur vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Laron Branch, Jabalpur vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Chandera Branch, Sagar vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Mohangarh Branch, Jabalpur vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Niwadi Branch, Sagar vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Rajapur Branch, Sagar vs. ITO(TDS) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Orchha Branch, Sagar vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank Neguan Branch, Neguwan Sagar vs. ITO(TDS)-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Majholi Branch, Majholi vs. Cito-TDS-2 Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…6/2015? That would be, quite plainly, ludicrous. The charge has to be, to make it effective, thus, necessarily be read as liable to be enforced, irrespective of the filing of the statement or its processing. As explained in L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it, and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. As explained in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), being even otherwise trite law, the provisions of a taxing statute dealing with the machinery for assessment have to be construed…

Shri Shankarlal Vishwkarma, Katni vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC- TDS, Ghaziabab

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

…(2020) 115 Taxman.com 345 and submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 234E was uphold by the Madras High Court. The ld. counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala Vs. ITO’ (1961) 41 ITR 12 and submitted that Section 200A is not prejudicing the general power of the AO to levy penalty. The Ld. DR has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Biswajit Das vs. Union of India’ 103 Taxman.com 290 referring to the explanatory note for introducing sub clause-c of 200A more particularly at para 47.3 the Ld.…

Shri Shankarlal Vishwkarma, Katni vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC- TDS, Ghaziabab

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

…(2020) 115 Taxman.com 345 and submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 234E was uphold by the Madras High Court. The ld. counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala Vs. ITO’ (1961) 41 ITR 12 and submitted that Section 200A is not prejudicing the general power of the AO to levy penalty. The Ld. DR has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Biswajit Das vs. Union of India’ 103 Taxman.com 290 referring to the explanatory note for introducing sub clause-c of 200A more particularly at para 47.3 the Ld.…

Pooran Lal Vishwakarma, Katni vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

…(2020) 115 Taxman.com 345 and submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 234E was uphold by the Madras High Court. The ld. counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala Vs. ITO’ (1961) 41 ITR 12 and submitted that Section 200A is not prejudicing the general power of the AO to levy penalty. The Ld. DR has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Biswajit Das vs. Union of India’ 103 Taxman.com 290 referring to the explanatory note for introducing sub clause-c of 200A more particularly at para 47.3 the Ld.…

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

…Nitin Sharma v. Pr. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.25/JAB/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income (PAN: AJFPS 0440J) Tax-2, Jabalpur (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rahul Bardia, CA Respondent by Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing 24/08/2020 Date of pronouncement 28/09/2020 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee against the Order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereina…

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

…wrong 16 ITA Nos. 594/Asr/2014 (AY 1997-98) H. K. Gandotra v. ITO mention of the section, as long as the authority has the requisite power and jurisdiction to exercise the same, it is well-settled, is of no moment (viz. L. Hazari Mal Kathulia v. ITO [1960] 41 ITR 12 (SC); Kantamani Vankata Narayana & Sons (supra)), while here both the limbs form part of the same section and, as apparent from the reading of, inter alia, Explanation 1 thereto, form part of the same charge. 3.6 Next may be discussed the assessee’s reliance on the decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). The said reliance, as inde…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

…v. Asst. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 233 (Mad). There is in our view no ambiguity in law; the words used in sec. 148(1), the scope of which is judicially well-settled, being ‘so far as may be’. Even assuming one, the Apex Court in L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), a decision by its’ larger bench, explained that the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which confers validity upon it and not a jurisdiction under which it will be nugatory. The decision in Cabon India Ltd. (supra) is not with reference to section 148 proceedings, or a case where the jurisdiction to assess has been already…

M/S Sant Baba Bhag Singh Memorial Charitable Society, Jalandhar vs. D.C.I.T, Circle - 1 (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

…r, even otherwise, this does not in any manner preclude the Revenue to tax the donor for donations out of undisclosed sources, i.e., unproved capacity, u/s. 69A, or even the donee for unexplained credit u/s. 68. As held in L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power is with reference to a jurisdiction which confers validity (to the exercise) and not to that which would render it nugatory. The reason for taxing a sum in the hands of the ostensible source (i.e., investor/depositor) for, say, want of capacity u/s. 69/69A and, on the other, its’ application (i.e., investee/depositee), a…

Shri Vikas Sharma, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 79/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

…s in law. The cash deposits in bank are only money, squarely covered u/s. 69A. In fact, as long as the AO’s action is referable to a provision, mention of the section, or even mention of a wrong section, is immaterial (refer: Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC); Namdev Arora v. CIT [2010] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) – the latter also referred to during hearing).. Two, the word ‘found’ in section 69A, etc. is not qualified to restrict its’ operation to the discovery of an undisclosed asset in search or survey. The assessee’s argument is accordingly rejected. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee…