“non application of mind”

Natural JusticeApplication of MindApplication of Mind701 judgments

The decision most relied on for non application of mind is CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), cited in 1,162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on non application of mind

CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,162

citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court

990

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Manu Engg

122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court

505

citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court

471

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

392 ITR 4 · 2017 · High Court

417

citing judgments

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.

64 Taxmann.com 313 · 2015 · Supreme Court

340

citing judgments

A mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151, made without independent application of mind, vitiates and renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Such approvals, often indicated by brief, unreasoned endorsements, lead to the quashing of the reopening of assessment.

Judgments citing non application of mind

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

which renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It can only be concluded that there was non application of mind by the AO and hence proceedings u/s 263 of the 1961 Act are warranted. 7. In view of the above, the assessment order passed

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Court in the case of CIT v. S. Goenka Lime & Chemicals Ltd., the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of Jt. CIT while grating the sanction u/s. 151 of the Act. It was held that the jurisdictional condition ... augment his contention that the approval granted by the CITIC)- III, Mumbai by way of putting his initials on the note sheet demonstrates non application of mind by the CIT. However it is pertinent to mention that unlike the Bombay High Court, the High Court of Calcutta in the case

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR

Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

disputed issues were the A.O has called for the information and the case was discussed and hence there cannot be any non application of mind by the Assessing officer. We find that the A.O has considered one of the possible views based on the information and it is not necessary ... order of ITO observing that order of ITO did not contain discussion in regard to allow ability of claim for deduction which indicated non-application of mind and that claim of assessee required examination as to whether expenditure in question was a revenue or capital expenditure and directed

Drums Food International P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 568/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmandrums Food Vs. Pcit – 6 International Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 5Th Unit No. 912, 9Th Floor Floor, Aayakar Hubtown Solaris, N.S Bhavan, Mk Road, Phadke Marg, Andheri Mumbai – 400020. (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd7235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Surendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Surendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

these facts which are on record and the case was discussed by the A.O in the assessment proceedings therefore there cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. Further the A.O has considered one of the possible views based on the information and it is not necessary that

Mrs Mamta Sharad Gupta, Thane vs. The ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1553/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Phadke, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kanhiya Lal Kanak, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

affording an opportunity to the appellant to defend her case, and as such, the same is liable to be annulled on account of non application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice. 3) The Ld. CIT (A) also failed to consider that the appellant was never given

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

investigation wing but the findings of the Ld.AO himself of income having escaped assessment. The reasons recorded cannot be considered to be a non application of mind by the Ld.AO. The decisions therefore relied by the Ld.AR do not assist the assessee at all. 32. The Ld.AO met with

Kay Foam Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -2, Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 598/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

held as bad and illegal as the same is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, as well as with non application of mind to the facts and the contentions brought on record by the Appellant. Without prejudice to the above 2. Revision Illegal 2.1 The Ld. PCIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7214/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

that the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I T Act 1961 was bad in law by treating that there was non application of mind by the AO while reopening C.O. No. 221/MUM/2018 M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., the assessment without appreciating that the AO had duly applied

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7213/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

The Greater Bombay Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 600/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Greater Bombay Vs. Pr.Cit -1 Co- Op Bank Ltd, Room No. 330, 3Rd 89 Gbcb House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Bhuleshwar, Mumbai – M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400002 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabat4479N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok Sharma.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajit K.Shrivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) Mumbai-1 Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sharma.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K.Shrivastava.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

called for the information and the case was discussed and there The Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd, Mumbai. cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. We find that the A.O has considered one of the possible views based on the information and it is not necessary

Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6429/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271D

from the AO of the searched person, there is no allegation of Benami for AY 11-12. • This shows that there is complete non application of mind by AO • The cash deposits in a bank account by itself does not give any reason to believe. Reliance in this regard

Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6428/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271D

Monika Anand Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 5561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Issuing The Same Were Baseless & As Such, The Reassessment Proceedings In Pursuance Thereof Is Vitiated. 2) The Ld. Cit (A) Also Failed To Consider That The Impugned Order Is Passed Mechanically By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Affording An Opportunity To The Appellant To Defend Her Case & As Such, The Same Is Liable To Be Annulled On Account Of Non Application Of Mind & Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 3) The Ld. Cit (A) Also Failed To Consider That The Appellant Was Never Given Any Opportunity To Cross-Examine The Person Who Made The Statement Against The Appellant, Much Less, The Alleged Material Was Never Provided To Her & As Such, The Same Is Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 4) The Ld. Cit (A) Lost Sight Of The Fact That Any Statement Made By & Person U/S. 132 [4] Cannot Be Used Against Any Third Person & Therefore

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -(1), Mumbai

ITA 749/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Ghosh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69

cannot be allowed to be revised under section 263 of the Act. Moreover, there is nothing on file to show that there is non application of mind on the part of the AO. 21. Moreover, in the instant case only different view taken by the AO as well

M/S Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysuru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Mysuru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1480/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Mysore Race Club The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Post Box No. 11, Tax, Race Course Road, Vs. Circle – 1 [2], Mysuru – 570 010. Mysuru. Pan: Aabcm5167G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/10/2016 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2011- 12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed Over & Above The Returned Income By It On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Collected From Punters For Disbursement As Dividend To Punters Stands Diverted At Source By Virtue Of Overriding Title On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. [I]. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That The Totalizator Collection From The Punters Stands Diverted At Source For Disbursement To Dividend To Punters On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. [Ii]. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That Method Of Accounting Adopted By The Appellant Were Accepted By The Revenue From Past

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Janardhan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 40Section 40A

impugned order of assessment is without any reasoning and consequently the assessment is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and non application of mind and the order is liable to be set aside on the facts and circumstances of the case. [iv]. The learned Commissioner of Income ... appreciate that the additions and disallowances made by the learned assessing officer in the order of assessment is without assailing any reasons and non application of mind and requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant denies itself liable to pay interest under

Sicot India Foundation, Mumbai vs. DCIT(CPC), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4328/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Or At, The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal, So As To Enable The Hon. Ita'I To Decide This Appeal According To Law.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

such processing by the computer can be is said to be the order under section 154 of the Act, which admittedly betrays non application of mind and supply of reasoning for the order. Such an order under section 154 of the Act is also liable to be quashed because

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 807/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebreach Candy Hospital Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Trust, Room, Mp/ 617, 6Th 60, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Piramal Road, Mumbai – Chambers, Lalbaug, 400026. Parel, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ketan Ved. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 19.03.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Ketan Ved. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Mahesh Akhade. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 263

considered these facts that the A.O has called for the information and the case was discussed and there cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. We find that the A.O has considered one of the possible views based on the information and it is not necessary that ... order of ITO observing that order of ITO did not contain discussion in regard to allow ability of claim for deduction which indicated non-application of mind and that claim of assessee required examination as to whether expenditure in question was a revenue or capital expenditure and directed

Mr. Amit Mafatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 19, Mumbai

ITA 171/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 68Section 69C

under section 57 of the Act by duly applying his mind, it is neither a case of no enquiry nor a case of non application of mind by the AO, thus proceedings under section 263 of the Act cannot be initiated. Resultantly, the impugned order passed under section

Shoreline Hotel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Vivek Upadhay. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee, stresses Kaushalya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushalya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice (has not) impaired or prejudiced the right ... should not be done". 185. No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under s. 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one assessment