Manoj Ahuja (Minor) & ANR. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

150 ITR 696High Court1984#6665 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)(iiiad)Section 10(23C)(vi)Section 115BAA Section 115BBA Section 119-2B Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(23c)(vi)section 10(23c)section 44ab section 80p(2)(a)(i)section 10 condonation of delay section 143(1)reasonable cause previous year section 13 company person

Judgments citing Manoj Ahuja (Minor) & ANR. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

M.B.D PRINTOGRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 1660/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24 Mbd Printographics Private Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Mbd House, Circle-16(1), Gulab Bhavan, Delhi. 6, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm9208R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Muneesh Rajani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muneesh Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 119Section 143(1)Section 250

…he settled principle of law that the assessee could not suffer on account of the mistake of the counsel. The assessee, before the first appellate authority, relied upon certain case laws as follows:- (i) Manoj Ahuja & Anr. Vs. Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner, 150 ITR 696 (P&H); (ii) CG Paul & Co. vs. Income Tax Officer (1994) 49 TTJ (Coch) 692: 52 ITD 276; (iii) Income Tax Officer vs. Meghalaya Bonded Warehouse (1997) 57 TTJ (Gau) 440: 60 ITD 219; (iv) Sudershan Auto & General Finance vs. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Del) 567: 60 ITD 177; (v) (A) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. Supreme Court of India, S1…

M/S SHAKTI SPINNERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 599/CHANDI/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 599/Chd/ 2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Shakti Spinners Ltd. बनाम The Asst. CIT 5, Flower Dale Colony, Barewal Circle-7, Ludhiana Road, Ludhiana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAFCS1138R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.…

E I P R (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), , MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: \nShri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 37(1)

…It was contented by the assessee therein that it was just a mistake\nof the Auditor in the Tax Audit Report and for which, the assessee could\nnot be penalized as per settled law by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana\nHigh Court in the case of Manoj Ahuja, reported in 150 ITR 696\nand of Chandigarh Bench of ITAT in the case of Habrol\nCooperative Agricultural Service Society Vs ITO, in ITA No.\nPage 11\nITA No. 351/Mum/2025\nA.Y. 2017-18\nEIPR(India)Private Limited, Mumbai\n158/Chd/2024. It was held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the\nuncalled for addition. Relevant paras of the order are reproduced as\nbelow:\n\"3.4…

MAHARISHI DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY ,PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS )CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 343/ASR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. A.K. Periwal, C.A

Section 10

…lowings decisions where it has been held that the assessee should not suffer on account of mistake of the counsel and considering the facts stated above, we condone the delay: (i) MANOJ AHUJA (MINOR) & ANR. vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, reported in 150 ITR 696. (ii) Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions (P) Ltd. Vs CIT, reported in 95 ITR (Trib.) 0456 (Amritsar) 5 I.T.A. No.343/Asr/2024 Maharishi Dayanand Education Society v. CIT (iii) C.G. PAUL & CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1TAT, COCHIN BENCH, reported in 52 ITD 276 (iv) INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. MEGHALAYA BONDED WAREHOUSE, I.T.A.T., GAUHATI BEN…

PUNJAB AGRICULTUAL UNIVERSITY,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 661/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshi, Judical Member आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 661/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Punjab Agriculture University, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम Thapar Hall, Income Tax (Exemptions), Ferozepur Road, Chandigarh Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaabp0216H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 492/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Punjab Agriculture University, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Thapar Hall, बनाम Income Tax (Exemptions), Ferozepur Road, Chandigarh Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaabp0216H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12 .2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

…ha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of 661 & 492-Chd-2024 – Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana 8 Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 8183-818 of 2013). • Manoj Ahuja (Minor) & ANR vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner reported in 150 ITR 696. • CG Paul & Co. vs. Income Tax Officer, ITAT Cochin Bench reported in 52 ITD 276. • Income Tax Officer vs. Meghalaya Bonded Warehouse, ITAT Gauhati Bench, Reported in 60 ITD 219. • Judgment of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of HP Cricket Association in ITA Nos. 110 & 111/Chd/2004. • Sudeshan Auto & General Finance vs. Commissioner of Income T…

PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,LUDHIANA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 492/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHAINA vs. HOMELAND CITY PROJECT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 37

…-reasoned order. 6. Lastly, it is submitted that it was just a mistake of the Auditor in the Tax Audit Report and for which, the assessee cannot be penalized as per settled law by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sh. Manoj Ahuja, reported in 150 ITR 696 and of Chandigarh Bench of ITAT in the case of Habrol Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Vs ITO, in ITA No. 158/Chd/2024. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the uncalled for addition.” 8. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The CPC Bangalore disallowed the amount of Rs. 5,63,70,00,000/-…

THE HABROL COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,LAGRU vs. ITO DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 158/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Habrol Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Dharamshala Agricultural Service Society Limited, Vill. Lagru Khundian Distt.Kangra Hp 176031 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadat1205A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…should suffer as per the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sh. Manoj Ahuja (Miner) & Another 158-Chd-2024 – The Habrol Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Kangra 4 Vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as reported in 150 ITR 696 (P&H, 6. Further, reliance is being placed on the following judgments that even if there is wrong claim made by the assessee, but, if any, relief is due to the assessee, the same may be allowed, even if the assessee has omitted to claim the same inadvertently and in the said judgments, the reference has been made to CBDT Circular No. 15/1955 and…

SHRI YASHPAL NEHRA,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 713/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.713/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Yashpal Nehra Vs. PCIT, C/o Pankaj Arora, 3039A Power Bathinda. House Road, Sharma Complex Bathinda. [PAN:-AJQPN6644Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Sh. P.N. Arora, P.K. Singla, Advs. Sh. Nakul Aggarwal, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 06.06.2023 19.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld.…

BAHADUR KE TEXTILES & KNITWEAR ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 86/ASR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…He argued that the assessee cannot be penalized, when there is a reasonable case for delay in filing the appeal and for that, the appellant has relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional, Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sh. Manoj Ahuja, reported in 150 ITR 696, copy placed at pages 223 to 227 of Paper Book-II, wherein, it has been held that litigant should not suffer on account of mistake of counsel. ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 6 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT 9. The Ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench in case of M/s Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Pro…

BAHUDER KE TEXTILES AND KNITWEARS ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION ) , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 501/ASR/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

SH. PAWAN GARG,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-2, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1475/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1475/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…he part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that as per the binding judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Vs Manoj Ahuja 150 ITR 696, wherein, it has been held that no litigant shall sufer on account of the mistake of the counsel. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 6.0. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that no penalty was imposable as the assessee had only made a wrong c…

THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, C-1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 1412/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 17

…ws: • Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT, Circle-23(2), Mumbai [2017] 86 Taxmann.com 98 (Bom) • Premier Motor Garage Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh [2016] 70 taxmann.com 18 (P&H) • Manoj Ahuja and Anr. Vs. Inspecting Assistant [1984] 150 ITR 696 (P&H) • Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel Vs. ITO, [2013] 29 taxmann.com 389 (Gujarat) • M/s Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO ITAT, Amritsar Tribunal (Third Member) [2019] 57 CCH 0274 • Tek Ram (Dead Through Lrs.) Vs. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 133 (SC) 9. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further…

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD & ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) With Regard To Delay Have Not Been Considered Properly.

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: Sh. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 83/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 M/s Ajay Kumar Sood बनाम The Dy. CIT Engineers & Contractors, Central Circle-II, Chandigarh Sanjay Sadan, Chotta Shimla (H.P.) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKFA4648J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Sudhir Sehgal राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Ch…

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…he appeal in time and, 27 28 Shri Ram Bharose Sharma vs ITO, Ward- 2(4), Jaipur therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the appeal of the assessee and not deciding the same on merits” Manoj Ahuja & Anr. vs. IAC (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 229 : (1984) 150 ITR 696 (P&H) 5.6 In Shri Y P Trivedi v/s JCIT in ITA No.5994/Mum/2010 dated 11.07.2012 (MumTrib) (DPB 22-28). The facts do not suggest that the assessee has acted in a mala-fide manner or that the reasons explained are only a device to cover an ulterior purpose. It is a settled proposition of law that Courts should take a lenient view on the matter of…

SMT. GURDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-6(1), LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Harry RikhyFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

…ng of appeal could not be attended to, as a result delay has occurred. An affidavit in support of the assertions made alongwith a Doctor’s Certificate has been filed by the assessee. Reliance is placed upon the case of Manoj Ahuja & another V Inspecting ACIT, 150 ITR 696 (P&H) and Collector, Land Acquisition V Mst. Katiji & others 167 ITR 471 (S.C). It is the prayer of the assessee that delay may be condoned. 3. Considering the material available on record, the delay is condoned. ITA 1323/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 2 of 2 4. Addressing the impugned order, the ld. AR submitted that the additions made by the AO…

ASIAN POWER CONTROLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…their advice, such claim was made by the assessee, therefore, from this angle also, we are in agreement with the view that for the mistake of the chartered accountant, the assessee should not suffer as was held in various decisions. Like Manjoj Ahuja vs ACIT 150 ITR 696 (P & H), ratio laid down in Smt. Shefali Godha vs ITO (ITA No.550/Ind/2009) order dated 15/02/2010, Vipul Chattar (ITA No.146/Ind)2013) order dated 03/06/2013 and Shantilal Jain (ITA No.2123/Mum/2015) order dated 11/01/2016. In view of the aforementioned facts and the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that it may b…