Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT

396 ITR 538High Court2017#5365 most cited

What is Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT authority for?

A notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a printed format without specifying the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings is invalid and untenable in law, as it violates the principles of natural justice.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT · S. Chandrashekar v. ACIT · 396 ITR 538 · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · penalty notice · printed form · grounds of initiation · invalid notice · breach of natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 292B/BB

Judgments citing Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT

M/S. KORADA FURNITURE COMPANY PVT LTD.,,HUBLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) &TPS, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sandeep Kumar H.S., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 11. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT (2017) 396 ITR 398 (Kar.) (ii) Safina Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 702 (Kar.) (iii) S.Chandrashekar v. ACIT (2017) 396 ITR 538 (Kar.) (iv) Prince Consultancy (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 54 ITR(T) 334 (Mumbai – Trib.) 8 M/s.Korada Furniture Company Pvt. Ltd. (v) Meherjee Cassinath Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 187 TTJ 722 (Mumbai – Trib.) (vi) Mohd.Sharif Khan v. DCIT (2017) 58 ITR (T) 260 (Jaipur-Trib.) (vii) Ms.Sandhya Gadkari Sharma v. DCIT (2016) 181 TTJ 462 (Mumbai…

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…S Emerald Meadows ITA No. 380/2015 decided by hon'ble Karnataka H/C, SLP of the department was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). − 396 ITR 398 Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT (Karnatka) S. Chandra Shekhar Vs. ACIT 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) M/s. Sai Venkata Construction Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA Nos. 994 & 995/2013, order dated 11.03.2016) (Pune ITAT) Sanjog Tarachand Lodha Vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 688 and 689/PN/2014 order dated 31-082015 ) (Pune ITAT) − Sanghavi Savla Commodity Brokers P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.1746/Mum/2011, order dated 22.12.2015) (ITAT Mumbai) − Shri Deepak Kumar Patw…

UTTAM BALASAHEB GODBHARALE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

ITA 991/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 991/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Uttam Balasaheb Godbharale, Shree Tyres Mrf, Samrat Chowk, Nanded Road, Latur - 413512 Pan :Aevpg3770N . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Latur. . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :16/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Appellant Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad [Forshort “Cit(A)”] Dt.07/05/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Originated From The Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt 29/06/2017 Passed By The Income Tax Officer [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…bsentia of clear and crystallised charge being conveyed u/s 271(1)(c), which to be safeguarded by the appellant assessee. In this regard we also refer a similar judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “S Chandrashekar Vs ACIT”, reported at 396 ITR 538 (Karn) wherein a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings, was held to be invalid and untenable in law. 8. In omnibus, as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the quasi-criminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the A…

RAIPUR SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 164/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…e absentia of clear and crystallised charge being conveyed u/s 271(1)(c), which to be defended by the appellant assessee. In this regard we also refer a similar judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “S Chandrashekar Vs ACIT”, reported at 396 ITR 538 (Karn) wherein a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings, was held to be invalid and untenable in law. 8. In omnibus, as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the quasi-criminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Ac…

SHRI SWAPNIL KUMAR JAIN,CHAMPA (CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- JANJGIR, CHAMPA,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of aforestated observation

ITA 106/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battull

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…e absentia of clear and crystallised charge being conveyed u/s 271(1)(c), which to be defended by the appellant assessee. In this regard we also refer a similar judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “S Chandrashekar Vs ACIT”, reported at 396 ITR 538 (Karn) wherein a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings, was held to be invalid and untenable in law. 8. In omnibus, as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the quasi-criminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the A…

SRI.P.M.ABDULLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/530/2018HC Karnataka08 Sept 2021

Bench: The Commissioner

Section 260Section 260ASection 271Section 274

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.530/2018 BETWEEN : SRI P.M.ABDULLA S/O LATE MAMMU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS PROP M/s SULLIAKAR RUBBER AGENCY SAITHU BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR, SULLIA-574239 PAN NO: ACRP3294R ...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.MALHARA RAO, ADV. FOR SRI S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PUTTUR -574201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS F…

INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)- 2 vs. M/S HARSH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

ITA/620/2019HC Delhi22 Dec 2020
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA Nos.620/2019 & 622/2019 Page 1 of 10 $~A-4&5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 620/2019 & CM APPL. 30811/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)- 2 ..... Appellant Through: Deepak Anand, Standing Counsel versus M/S HARSH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. + ITA 622/2019 & CM APPL. 30813/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)- 2 ..... Appellant Through: Deepak Anand, Standing Counsel versus M/S HARSH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. %…

M/S KAVERI ASSOCIATES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/375/2013HC Karnataka31 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.375 OF 2013 BETWEEN: M/S. KAVERI ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. RISHABCHAND BHANSALI NO.10, T.N. SETTY LANE AVENUE ROAD CROSS BANGALORE-560002. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1), UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE 6TH FLOOR, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K…

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271(1)

…ent of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7.2 The Ld. AR relied on the recent judgments of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT reported in 396 ITR 398 and in the case of S. Chandrasekar Vs. ACIT reported in 396 ITR 538 and also that of Telangana & I.T.A. Nos.374-380/Coch/2019 381 to 384/coch/2019 Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi reported in 398 ITR 88. Hence, it was submitted that the penalty levied may be cancelled.” 8. The Ld. DR submitted that it was only a technical mistake which was not to be considered and the a…

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ITA 4/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ent of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 8. The Ld. AR relied on the recent judgments of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT reported in 396 ITR 398 and in the case of S. Chandrasekar Vs. ACIT reported in 396 ITR 538 and also that of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi reported in 398 ITR 88. Hence, it was submitted that the penalty levied may be cancelled. I.T.A. No 04/Coch/2017 & C.O. No.09/Coch/2017 9. The Ld. DR submitted that it was only a technical mistake which was not to be considered and the appea…

SRI.M.R.SOMARAJAN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/COCH/2019[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271(1)(c)

…ng Officer 3 I.T.A. No.50/Coch/2019 himself was not sure about the default for which he was proposing to levy a penalty. In the light of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court reported as 396 ITR 398 (Karn) [ Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT] and as 396 ITR 538 (Karn) [S. Chandrasekar Vs. ACIT] and also that of Hon'ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as 398 ITR 88 (T&AP) [ Pr.CIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi], since there was no valid initiation of penal provisions no penalty could have been levied in the Appellant's case and hence the penalty levied may be cancelled.” 3.1 The assessee has…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. LAXMICHAND D. ROHIRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1178/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 132

…had understood that the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income based on the observations in the assessment order itself. Before parting, we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Chandrashekar, 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) wherein a notice ITA. Nos. 1178 to 1184/Mum/2016 CO. Nos. 250 to256/Mum/2017 A.Ys. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 , 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble…

M/S GAYATHRI EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

ITA/640/2015HC Karnataka24 Apr 2018

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

Section 142(1)Section 260Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV ITA No.640/2015 BETWEEN: M/s. Gayathri Exports, Attur North, Karkala – 576 117, Represented by Partner, Sri. B. Prabhakar Kamath, Aged about 76 years, Son of Sri.B.Thimmappa. ... Appellant (By Smt. Sheetal Borkar for Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Advocates) AND: The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Nandi Gudda Road, Attavara, Mangalore -575…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5699/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had understood that the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income based on the observations in the assessment order itself. Before parting, we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Chandrashekar, 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) wherein a notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice so issued, there is a breach of principles of natural justice and ac…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5698/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had understood that the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income based on the observations in the assessment order itself. Before parting, we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Chandrashekar, 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) wherein a notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice so issued, there is a breach of principles of natural justice and ac…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had understood that the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income based on the observations in the assessment order itself. Before parting, we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Chandrashekar, 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) wherein a notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice so issued, there is a breach of principles of natural justice and ac…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5696/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had understood that the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income based on the observations in the assessment order itself. Before parting, we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Chandrashekar, 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) wherein a notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice so issued, there is a breach of principles of natural justice and ac…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5695/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had understood that the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income based on the observations in the assessment order itself. Before parting, we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Chandrashekar, 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) wherein a notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice so issued, there is a breach of principles of natural justice and ac…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…had understood that the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income based on the observations in the assessment order itself. Before parting, we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Chandrashekar, 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) wherein a notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice so issued, there is a breach of principles of natural justice and ac…

ORBIT ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1597/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…had understood that the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income based on the observations in the assessment order itself. Before parting, we may also refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Chandrashekar, 396 ITR 538 (Karn.) wherein a notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be invalid and untenable in law. As per the Hon'ble High Court, in the absence of any specific ground in the notice M/s. Orbit Enterprises so issued, there is a breach of principles…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2