Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

118 ITR 326Supreme Court of India1979#1732 most cited

What is Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. authority for?

There is no legal presumption that every person knows the law, and the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' does not imply universal legal awareness. This principle is applied when evaluating whether a taxpayer's genuine belief or ignorance of law impacts their liability for penalties or constitutes reasonable cause.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills · 118 ITR 326 SC · ignorance of law is no excuse · no presumption every person knows law · penalty under Section 271(1)(c) · reasonable cause · intention to evade tax · genuine belief · Section 273B · Section 271D · mens rea in tax penalties · ignorance of tax laws

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 269ssection 269tsection 273penalty under section 271dsection 269sssection 253(5)section 273bsection 271dsection 269section 271esection 139(4)non-speaking order

Judgments citing Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Oosmania Trust, Muzaffarpur vs. CIT (E), Patna

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

ITA 519/PAT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

…ent Year: 2025-26 Oosmania Trust. very old trust and the trustees were not conversant fully with the complex renewal of registration provisions in the Income Tax Act. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Ltd vs. UP (1979) 118 ITR 326(SC) has held as follows: "It must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law." Therefore in view of the provisions of the first proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) the delay in filing the application for renewal of registration may please be condoned and issue may be remanded to the desk of the CIT(E) to consider the app…

Zafar Iqbal, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Siliguri

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

…. CIT(A) had allowed the claim of the appellant against which the department filed appeal before ITAT The Hon'ble ITAT allowed the claim of the appellant relying on the decision of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its unique judgment in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) had observed…

Tejas Shivaji Adsul, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

…ee was under genuine belief that income on sale of agricultural lands is not taxable in view of judgement in Ushaben chauhan vs. ITO (ITA No.501/Ahd/2023) and Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC)). b) Reason for non filing of return is not intention to evade tax but ignorance of tax laws. The AO ignored to notice that return of income was immediately filed in response to notice u/s148 upon realising that income on sale transaction is taxable. Since there is no intention to evade tax. No penalty is leviable. Reliance placed on Meeta G…

Shri Kingshuk Ghoshal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-6(5), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54Section 80E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal v. The ITO 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite HAL, Faizabad Road Lucknow TAN/PAN:AFFPG3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against order dated 26.12.2017, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the…

Vardhman Infra Developers (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-78(3), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 511/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.511/Del./2024, A.Y. 2014-15 Vardhman Infra Developers Income Tax Officer, (P) Ltd., 401-414, C-58, Ward-78(3), 4Th Floor, Shahpuri, Vs. Income Tax Office, Tirath Singh, Tower Dda, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan: Aadcv3838M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2014-15 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 201Section 203Section 272A(2)(g)Section 273Section 276BSection 279(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.511/Del./2024, A.Y. 2014-15 Vardhman Infra Developers Income Tax Officer, (P) Ltd., 401-414, C-58, Ward-78(3), 4th Floor, Shahpuri, Vs. Income Tax Office, Tirath Singh, Tower DDA, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi PAN: AADCV3838M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal for the Assessment…

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

…1 ITA NO. 381 & 382/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1, JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 381 & 382/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide cuke The ITO (Exemption) Vs. Near Pareek College, Banipark Ward-1, Jaipur 302 016 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAL…

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charge of ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

…1 ITA NO. 381 & 382/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1, JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 381 & 382/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide cuke The ITO (Exemption) Vs. Near Pareek College, Banipark Ward-1, Jaipur 302 016 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAL…

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

…pursuing other remedies provided in the Act based on wrong professional advice given to it. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in 118 ITR 326 (SC) which emphasized that assessee cannot be presumed to have legal awareness and the principle of ‗ignorantia juris non excusat‘ (ignorance of law is of no excuse) legal maxim was underscored. The said decision specifically held that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the…

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

…pursuing other remedies provided in the Act based on wrong professional advice given to it. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in 118 ITR 326 (SC) which emphasized that assessee cannot be presumed to have legal awareness and the principle of ‗ignorantia juris non excusat‘ (ignorance of law is of no excuse) legal maxim was underscored. The said decision specifically held that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the…

Kanhiaya Lal Sain, Jaipur vs. JCIT Range-7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…a reasonable cause in terms of S. 273 B. Ld. Add. CIT confined herself to S.269T only and has not at all adverted to this Section. The Honble ITAT followed in Kamal Kumar Jain in ITA No. 808/Jp/2008 dt. 31.10.2008 also Kindly refer Motilal Padampat Singhania 118 ITR 326(SC) followed in Veer Sales Corporation 50 TTJ 130 at 153, Dillu Cine Enterprises Ltd. v/s Ad. CIT 80 ITD 484 (Hyd.) also Chandra Cement Ltd. Vs. DCIT 23 TW 160 (JP) and Hissariya Brothers v/s JCIT 73 TTJ 1 (JD). 4.1 Covered matter: The Honble Raj. High Court in the case of CIT V/s Raj Kumar Sharma 294 ITR 131 (Raj.) It has been held that reasonab…

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd Sangli, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

ITA 1101/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 269ASection 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…sessee cooperative society. Learned counsel also invites our attention to several decisions passed by the coordinate benches which, relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills Ltd Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (118 ITR 326), upheld the ignorance of law as a reasonable cause for non compliance with the provisions of Section 269SS. Learned counsel thus urges us to delete the penalty on the ground that the assessee was not aware about the legal requirements under section 269SS and thus he was of the bonafide belief that there is no violation of law in accepting…

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd Sangli, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

ITA 1100/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 269ASection 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…sessee cooperative society. Learned counsel also invites our attention to several decisions passed by the coordinate benches which, relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills Ltd Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (118 ITR 326), upheld the ignorance of law as a reasonable cause for non compliance with the provisions of Section 269SS. Learned counsel thus urges us to delete the penalty on the ground that the assessee was not aware about the legal requirements under section 269SS and thus he was of the bonafide belief that there is no violation of law in accepting…

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

ITA 1099/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 269ASection 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…sessee cooperative society. Learned counsel also invites our attention to several decisions passed by the coordinate benches which, relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills Ltd Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (118 ITR 326), upheld the ignorance of law as a reasonable cause for non compliance with the provisions of Section 269SS. Learned counsel thus urges us to delete the penalty on the ground that the assessee was not aware about the legal requirements under section 269SS and thus he was of the bonafide belief that there is no violation of law in accepting…

Sh. Saurabh Kaushik, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 312/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal., CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 194ISection 195Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

…as held that non-awareness of provisions of Section 194IA is a reasonable cause u/s 273B for not deducting income-tax at source. Hon'ble ITAT, in turn relied on following judgements of Honble Supreme Court: Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Vs. State of U.P. [118 ITR 326] • CIT v. P.S.S. Investments Private Limited, [(1977) 107 ITR 1(SC)] • In the case of Manish Jaiswal (supra), the assessee also demonstrated that no prejudice is caused to the Revenue due to non-deduction of TDS. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. In our case also, no prejudice has been caused to the revenue since the TDS was…

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…referred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 7.8 We also note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 118 ITR 326 held that “there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement, there is no such maxim to the law.” It was therefore, not possible to presume that assessee had full knowledge as to the various remedies sought by assessee, wherein assessee failed.…

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…referred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 7.8 We also note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 118 ITR 326 held that “there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement, there is no such maxim to the law.” It was therefore, not possible to presume that assessee had full knowledge as to the various remedies sought by assessee, wherein assessee failed.…

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 281/BANG/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…referred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 7.8 We also note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 118 ITR 326 held that “there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement, there is no such maxim to the law.” It was therefore, not possible to presume that assessee had full knowledge as to the various remedies sought by assessee, wherein assessee failed.…

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…referred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 7.8 We also note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 118 ITR 326 held that “there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement, there is no such maxim to the law.” It was therefore, not possible to presume that assessee had full knowledge as to the various remedies sought by assessee, wherein assessee failed.…

Shri Amit Ashok Khurana, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 751/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan , A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ar vs. ITO vide ITA No. 32/Ahd/2017 order dated 29-5-2018. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the bonafide ignorance of law is executable specially in laws other than criminal laws for the assessee relied upon the decision of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. 118 ITR 326 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T Ashok...vs. CIT.... 6. The ld. D.R. submitted that it is not a bonafide mistake but it is in respect of indexation which led to suppression of particulars of inaccurate furnishing of income. The ld. D.R. further submitted that the intention of the party was to hide the tax and therefo…

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1749/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1748 & 1749/Del/2012, A.Y. 2002-03 m/S. Sofitra Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, C-34, Zakir Bagh, Range-9 New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAECS1474R Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 05.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders dated 24.02.2009 and 18.02.2009 of ld. C…