Muninaga Reddy v. ACIT

396 ITR 538High Court2017#5274 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 366,005 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

Orbit Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1596/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

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…

Paro Food Products vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

ITTA/375/2013HC Telangana28 Aug 2013