Sunil Chandra Vohra v. ACIT

32 SOT 365Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#6979 most cited

What is Sunil Chandra Vohra v. ACIT authority for?

Ignorance of complex tax laws, such as Section 2(22)(e) related to deemed dividends, can be considered a reasonable cause for deleting penalties for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The complexity of tax laws means that even specialists may not understand them correctly, making it unjust to penalize assessees for such oversights.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Sunil Chandra Vohra v. ACIT · penalty · section 271(1)(c) · deemed dividend · section 2(22)(e) · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars of income · reasonable cause · ignorance of law

Judgments citing Sunil Chandra Vohra v. ACIT

Bank of India, Mahal Branch Nagpur vs. Dy.CIT(TDS)Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 160/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

…ustice. The appellant Bank relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji(1987) 167 ITR 471 and also on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) where it has been held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. The appellant Bank further relies on the decision of Jaipur Benches in case of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Umrao Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur vs DCIT (TDS), Jaipur. The appellant Bank further relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the ca…

Bank of India, Dongargaon Nagpur vs. Dy.CIT(TDS), Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 153/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

…ustice. The appellant Bank relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji(1987) 167 ITR 471 and also on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) where it has been held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. The appellant Bank further relies on the decision of Jaipur Benches in case of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Umrao Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur vs DCIT (TDS), Jaipur. The appellant Bank further relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the ca…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1490/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Manmohan Kandpal (ACIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…cient reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of jus…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1482/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Manmohan Kandpal (ACIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…cient reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of jus…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1481/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Manmohan Kandpal (ACIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…cient reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of jus…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1477/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Manmohan Kandpal (ACIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…cient reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of jus…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1474/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Manmohan Kandpal (ACIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…cient reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of jus…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1472/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) & That The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Rajib Sogani, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…cient reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of jus…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in

ITA 1489/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Dismissed The Appeals On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Without Going

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…t reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in

ITA 1487/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Dismissed The Appeals On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Without Going

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…t reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in

ITA 1486/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Dismissed The Appeals On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Without Going

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…t reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in

ITA 1483/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Dismissed The Appeals On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Without Going

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…t reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in

ITA 1476/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Dismissed The Appeals On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Without Going

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…t reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

In the result, all the nine appeals of the assessee are allowed in

ITA 1471/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Dismissed The Appeals On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Without Going

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 201(1)

…t reason for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, I found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the substantial interest of…

Mohit Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 3313/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.3313/Mum./2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005–06) Mohit Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Bc–7011, Tower–B …….………. अऩीरधथी / Central Block, Bharat Diamond Bourse “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacm2843A V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Range–5(2), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal सुनवधई की तधयीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing – 08.10.2015 Date Of Order – 30.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

…f particulars of income imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not justified. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decision. i) Sunilchandra Vohra v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2009] 32 SOT 365 (Mum.) ii) Gitanjali Ghate v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA no.6560/Mum./2010, order dated 23rd May 2012; iii) ACIT v/s M/s. Patel Holdings Ltd. ITA no.2199/Mum./2011, order dated 30th May 2012; iv) ITO v/s Paramount Apparels Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.2539/Mum./2011, order dated 31st January 2012; and v) Shri Ulhas S. Sabane v/s ITO, [2007]–(ID2)–G…

Smt. Rita Chopra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6815/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri C. M. Garg

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…t of deemed dividend no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is warranted. Ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in the case of Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs. ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 365 (Mum) wherein the ignorance of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act was held to be reasonable cause for deleting the penalty. The Tribunal held as under: "the tax laws in this country are so complex and complicated that even a person specializing in this field, including tax administrators, may not understand the law in the correct persp…

Sunil Chandra Vohra v. ACIT (32 SOT 365) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax