Ravindranathan Nair v. Dy. CIT

319 ITR 108High Court2009#11479 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271bsection 139(9)section 271bsection 273bsection 44asection 44absection 44levy of penaltysection 133asection 271reasonable causesection 139(1)

Judgments citing Ravindranathan Nair v. Dy. CIT

Rajarajeswari Krafts Private Limited, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Coporate Ward 4, Madrai, Madurai

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

ITA 1201/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1201/Chny/2023 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajarajeswari Krafts Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 900, Kamak Road, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, Sivakasi – 626 189. Madurai. [Pan: Aadcr-8256-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V.Rajasekaran, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.Rajasekaran, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271BSection 44A

…stipulated u/s. 271B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Kwality Skin Co. vs. CIT [2001] 119 Taxman 876 , Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Ravindranath Nair vs. Dy. CIT [2009] 319 ITR 108 and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Madhuban Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 374 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee relied on certain decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal. We :- 4 -: observe that this Tribunal in the case of Balaji Logistics vs. ACIT…

Ojin Bakers & Restaurant, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 183/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…of a reasonable cause, so that it boils down to evidence/s being led by the assessee who is to prove the reasonable cause. This represents the clear law in the matter, and toward which we may cite some decisions, viz. K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Dy. CIT[2009] 319 ITR 108 (Ker);Koramangala Club vs. ITO[2016]387ITR630(Kar); CIT vs. Khubi Ram Om Prakash[2004] 275 ITR 131 (Raj); Shri Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 477 (Bom); ITO vs. Nanak Singh Guliani[2002] 257 ITR 677 (MP). It would, we may add, be a different matter where a deduction postulates the condition of audit, in which case the requir…

Ojin Bakers, Medical College, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 182/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…of a reasonable cause, so that it boils down to evidence/s being led by the assessee who is to prove the reasonable cause. This represents the clear law in the matter, and toward which we may cite some decisions, viz. K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Dy. CIT[2009] 319 ITR 108 (Ker);Koramangala Club vs. ITO[2016]387ITR630(Kar); CIT vs. Khubi Ram Om Prakash[2004] 275 ITR 131 (Raj); Shri Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 477 (Bom); ITO vs. Nanak Singh Guliani[2002] 257 ITR 677 (MP). It would, we may add, be a different matter where a deduction postulates the condition of audit, in which case the requir…

Ojin Bakers, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 181/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…of a reasonable cause, so that it boils down to evidence/s being led by the assessee who is to prove the reasonable cause. This represents the clear law in the matter, and toward which we may cite some decisions, viz. K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Dy. CIT[2009] 319 ITR 108 (Ker);Koramangala Club vs. ITO[2016]387ITR630(Kar); CIT vs. Khubi Ram Om Prakash[2004] 275 ITR 131 (Raj); Shri Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 477 (Bom); ITO vs. Nanak Singh Guliani[2002] 257 ITR 677 (MP). It would, we may add, be a different matter where a deduction postulates the condition of audit, in which case the requir…

Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Income Tax Officer, Ward B/1 Bombay Market, No.1(2)(2), Aayakar Vs Umarwada, Surat-395003 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan No: Aobps 3537 D Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 21.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 09.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(2) Surat, Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.02.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.69,210/- U/S 271B Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Jigneshbhai R. Savalia 2. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Delete Any Ground(S) Either Before Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…d the action of Assessing Officer by referring the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kwality 5 Jigneshbhai R. Savalia Skin vs. ACIT (2001) 254 ITR 386 (P&H), Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair (2009) 319 ITR 108 (Kerala) and further decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Madhuban Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (157 TAXMAN 374 (Raj). Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and learned Senior Departmental Represen…

Nikhilchandra Namdeorao Tawade, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 46/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.46/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nikhilchandra Namdeorao The Income Tax Officer, Tawade, Vs Ward-2(4), Nashik. Plot No.1/C, Allakh Niranjan, Boys Town Road, Near Bramhan Samaj Karyalaya, College Road, Nasik – 422002. Pan: Adwpt 1037 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik’S, Order Dated 21.11.2019For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Involving Proceedings Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. I Have Filed Income Tax Return With Tax Audit Report & It Is Submitted To Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4) Nashik At Scrutiny Assessment. But I Do Not Know Why He Initiated Penalty. When In Cases There Is Form

Section 271BSection 44A

…Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Nashik (A) in filling Audit report. In the absence of any bonafide explanation supported by evidence, it is not possible to accept the reasons submitted by the assessee. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair 319 ITR 108 (Kerala) held as under: Quote “ On going through the Tribunal's order we find that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to justify the delay in filing the audit report as required under section 44AB of the Act and if any acceptable explanation was filed, the appellant could have avoided penalty. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the…

Sri.Ramakrishna Pillai M, Trivandrum vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed for this year also stands dismissed

ITA 531/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.NairFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 271BSection 44A

…for the delay caused. In the absence of explaining the reason for the delay caused, the penalty levied has to be confirmed and in this regard, I rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of K.Ravindranathan Nair vs DClT reported in 319 ITR 108. The penalty levied thus, is confirmed. In the result, the appeal filed for this year also stands dismissed.” ITA Nos.530-531/Coch/2018. 6 Sri.Ramakrishna Pillai M. 11. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax authorities. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order imposing of penalty and the order of…

Sri.Ramakrishanan Pillai M, Trivandrum vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed for this year also stands dismissed

ITA 530/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.NairFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 271BSection 44A

…for the delay caused. In the absence of explaining the reason for the delay caused, the penalty levied has to be confirmed and in this regard, I rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of K.Ravindranathan Nair vs DClT reported in 319 ITR 108. The penalty levied thus, is confirmed. In the result, the appeal filed for this year also stands dismissed.” ITA Nos.530-531/Coch/2018. 6 Sri.Ramakrishna Pillai M. 11. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax authorities. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order imposing of penalty and the order of…

Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 2236/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: S.V. Agarwal & Divya Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 271BSection 27ISection 44A

…2 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. Hence, the assessee-company has made the contravention to the provision of section and is liable for penalty u/s. 271B of the Act. 2.2 The reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair (2009), 319 ITR 108 (Kerala) wherein it was held that : "Where appellant did not adduce any evidence to justify delay in filing audit report as required under section 44AB, in absence of any evidence adduced by appellant at least before Tribunal, there was no ground to interfere with minimum penalty imposed under section 27IB for admitted delay of filing audit repo…