Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer v....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer v. Shri Banshilal Rathi1

High Court 17 May 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer v. Shri Banshilal Rathi1
Date of order
17 May 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer v. Shri Banshilal Rathi1, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for the same reasons, which have been assigned in Commissioner of Income Tax vs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.119/2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shri Banshilal Rathi1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.119/2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shri Banshilal Rathi DATE : 17/05/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAINHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.K.K. Bissa, for appellant.Mr.Anjay Kothari, for respondent. Learned counsel for parties conceded that point involved in the present matter has already been considered and decided by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore reported in (2013) 257 CTR (Raj.) 18. Para 10 of the above referred judgment is reproduced, as under :- “10.In view of the above, our answer to the formulated question of law is that even when the authority competent to impose penalty under s.271D was the Jt.CIT, the period of limitation for the purpose of such penalty proceedings was not to be reckoned from the issue of first show cause by the Jt. CIT, but the period of limitation was to be reckoned from the date of issue of first show cause for initiation of such penalty proceedings. For the purpose of present case, as observed hereinabove, for the proceedings having been initiated on 25[th] March, 2003, the order passed by the Jt.CIT under s. 271D on 28[th] May, 2004 was hit by the bar of limitation. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal have, thus, not committed any error in setting aside the order of penalty.Consequently the appeal fails and is, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.119/2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shri Banshilal Rathi2 therefore, dismissed”. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for the same reasons, which have been assigned in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore(supra). (ARUN BHANSALI),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Sanjay , JrpaS.No. “All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Sanjay Solanki JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan