Suptd. (Central Excise) v. Pratap Rai

114 ITR 231Supreme Court of India1978#8157 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

compensatory interest section 243 section 262 section 2(40)section 89 section 208 section 210 section 115jaa section 140a section 90a section 115ja section 245d

Judgments citing Suptd. (Central Excise) v. Pratap Rai

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…f the appellate order by the Tribunal vide it’s order dated 10/7/2013, is that the said order is set aside, and the assessment proceedings restored before the AO, who is to accordingly proceed as per it’s order. In Suptd. (Central Excise) v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC), the appellate authority, observing lack of principle of natural justice, vacated, without prejudice, the adjudication by an order levying penalty. The challenge to a fresh notice issued in the penalty proceedings was found misconceived by the Apex Court. As explained by it, where an order passed in appeal vacates the order of the first Trib…

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor vs. Alappuzha Co0llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [PAN:ALRPT7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by Assessee challenging the confirmation of penalty levied under sec…

P R SUDEEP,ALATHUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Aroraand Shri Manomohan Dasp.R. Sudeep Dy. Cit, Parakkal Bharath Gas Agencies Central Circle Bank Road, Alathur Vs. Thrissur Palakkad 678541 [Pan:Axsps7870B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’)For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Levied Per Order Dated 28.6.2017, In First Appeal By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [Cit(A)], Vide His Order Dated 01.01.2021. 2. The Assessee’S Case Before Us & The Only One At That, Was That The Penalty Is Not Maintainable As Its Initiation, Upon Expressing Satisfaction In Its Respect In The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016, By Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S. 274 Of Even Date, Is Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Is Qua Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), No Longer Applicable For Search Cases, I.E.,01/7/2007 Onwards & Not As U/S. 271Aab Of The Act, Where The Search Is Initiated On Or After 01/7/2012 & For Which We Were Taken By Sh. Venkitaraman, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Through Sections 271 And271Aab Of The Act, As Well As The Impugned Notice (Pb Pg. 24).

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 292B

…is claimed to. As explained by the Hon'ble Courts time and again, proceedings become irregular only when prejudice is caused, and where so, the proceedings are liable to be restored to the stage where an irregularity intervenes (Suptd. CE v.Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC);Guduthur Bros. vs. ITO[1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC)). Reference be also made to T.A. Abdul Khader vs. CWT [2008]296 ITR 20 (Ker), where the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, with reference to sec.42C of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (corresponding to s. 292B of the Act), found no prejudice caused in view of the hearing granted, as obtains in the instan…

YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…of absence/lack of opportunity. In other words, the argument is a non-starter. Why, even in case of established non-grant of opportunity, the proceedings would go to the stage where the said irregularity intervened (Suptd. Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC); Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC)). On merits, the argument that the exact default, i.e., concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, becomes largely irrelevant in the given facts and circumstances of the case where, as afore- noted, the income assessed is per the statutory mandate. There…

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

…s the notice u/s. 263 remains uncompiled with, 8 Saurabh Singhai v. ITO as indeed to satisfy the mandate of audi alterm partem (see: Guduthur Brother vs. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC); Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia (supra); Sptd. Of Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC)), case law on which is again legion. Two, we may clarify that even as we regard the notice u/s. 263 as served, the same finding is not, in the absence of any positive material in the file folder of the revision proceedings in its respect, extended to the impugned order, claimed per the memo of appeal (Form 36) as received by the assessee- ap…

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…the two cases. All we can say is that an order passed without affording proper opportunity to the assessee cannot be said to be, at least as a matter of rule, non- est; there being decisions by the Apex Court, as in Supdt., Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC) and Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC), both by its’ larger benches, impinging on the matter. In fact, the courts of law have been regularly remitting back such matters to the file of the assessing authority for compliance with the procedure (viz. Areva T & D Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 233 (Mad)), i.e., raising objections to the is…

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…said prejudice, enabling the assessee (noticee) the opportunity to state its case; the jurisdiction of levy penalty having been already assumed. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions, inter alia, in Supdt., Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC) and Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC), both by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In Manu Engineering Works (supra), the Hon’ble Court itself clarifies that it may be proper to issue a notice u/s. 274 without specifying any particular limb of the provision of s. 271(1)(c), though the same must be specified while imposing the pe…

SMT. NIRMAL KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 700/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 69

…ce of the said notice, the matter would have go back to the stage at which the irregularity had occurred, i.e., as per the said law in the matter of larger benches (ref: Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC); Supdt., Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC)). No wonder, the Hon’ble High Court in CIT v. Jasbir Singh [2014] 103 DTR 427 (P&H) did not countenance the 9 Nirmal Kaur v. ITO assessee’s claim of non-service of notice u/s. 148. Reference in this context may also be drawn to the decision in CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H) in which the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Cour…

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 144Section 154

…ngs would have to be restored to the stage at which the irregularity had occurred, even as explained by the Apex Court per the decisions by its’ larger benches, as in Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC) and Supdt., Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC). Where the notice remained 10 Jaspal Singh v. ITO undisposed, it was explained in Guduthur Bros. (supra), it did not cease to be operative. The proceedings, lawfully initiated, shall travel to the point where the illegality supervened. The ITO had the jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from that stage. Further, as explained in the la…

KAILASHPATI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vice-Assessment Year : 2003-04 Kailashpati Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward 5(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan : Aaack1244M

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel &For Respondent: Ms Bedobani, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

…ed the AO to grant an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the concerned witness rather than quashing the assessment. Similar view has been taken by the ITA No.1033/Del/2013 28 Hon’ble Apex Court in Supdt. (Tech) Central Excise VS. Pratap Rai (1977) 114 ITR 231 (SC). 34. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no force in the argument of the ld. AR that the assessment be quashed for not providing the assessee an opportunity of cross examining Sh. Mahesh Garg. This being a procedural irregularity, is directed to be made good by the AO by…