DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE V. A. NITHYA, ERODE

MA 41/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had earlier set aside a penalty imposed on the assessee, Smt. Arulsundaram Nithya, for alleged concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Revenue contended that the ITAT had not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT, which allegedly supported their case. However, the Tribunal found that the Supreme Court's decision did not apply to the facts of the present case and that the notice issued to the assessee was indeed defective as it did not specify the exact nature of the alleged default.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846343 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Gangotri Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Babuji Jacob v. ITO, Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, SSA Emerald Meadows, Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ; LETTER DATED
• Keywords: Revised return; Question of law; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c); 132

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.41/Chny/2025 (in ITA No.1112/Chny/2023) िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. v. Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya, 11, Poondurai Road, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. [PAN: ABSPN 5094 N] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) Department by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT Assessee by : Mr. N. Arjunraj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 01.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is a Miscellaneous Application (MA) preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 09.08.2024 in ITA No.1112/Chny/2023 for AY 2013-14. 2. The main grievance of the Revenue is noted as under: Consequent to a search conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises of the M/s RPP Infra Projects Pvt Ltd. along with that of the assessee, being the Chairman and Managing director of the said company on 24/03/2016, the assessment was completed by making a total addition collectively of Rs.89,00,798/-along with initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty u/s Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 2 :: 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied amounting to Rs. 13,26,532/- vide penalty order dated 27/09/2016. Aggrieved by the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings, dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 08/08/2023. Aggrieved by the decision of CIT(A), the assessee filed further appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai. The assessee has also raised on the issue of legality of issue of notice of penalty u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 28/03/2016 issued by the assessing officer. The Hon'ble ITAT during the appellate proceedings observed that while issuing the penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s-271(1)(c) dated 28/03/2016 the AO has struck down one of the two limbs which are not applicable in the facts of the assessee's case for levy of penalty f.e the assessing officer has struck down \"Concealed the particulars of your income \"which the AO meant the penalty was initiated \"for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income\". But the assessing officer erred by passing the penalty order vide order dated 27/09/2016 considering the assessee's case attracts both the limbs l.e for \"Concealed the particulars of your income\" and \"for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income\". Accordingly, the Hon'ble ITAT relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob in 430 ITR 259 (Madras), opined that the penalty notice issued by the AO is invalid and legally untenable and the penalty levied is bad in law. Petition: The Hon'ble ITAT has rolled upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad) and held that the notice was defective and assessee was handicapped from defending the charges properly. The Hon'ble ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on legal grounds stating the penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 28/03/2016 Issued by the AD is bad In law as the penalty notice was issued for one of the limbs u/s 271(1)(c) and the penalty was levied vide order dated 27/09/2016 stating for both the limbs as described in the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decision of the ITAT Is not in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2022] 137 taxmann.com 198 (SC) wherein it has dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee against the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on the contention that notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was defective on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind while Issuing the notice to state as to whether he was of the prima facie view that the assessee concealed the particulars of Income or furnished inaccurate particulars of Income. The Hon'ble Supreme in the order cited supra has adjudicated, \"we could safely conclude that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued under Section 274 r/w Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage.\" The issue involved in the present case is also identical and decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is also made on the same issue that the AO had levied penalty for \"concealment of particulars of income\" and also for \"furnishing Inaccurate Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 3 :: particulars of income\" after having given notice only for one fault, i.e., \"furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\". For the above mentioned reasons, the order of the ITAT in the present case is not in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 137 taxmann.com 198 (SC) and hence it is prayed that the order may be recalled and requested that the Hon'ble ITAT may pass appropriate order as It deem fit to do so. This application is being submitted before the Hon'ble ITAT for perusal and consideration as per the directions of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Tamil Nadu & Puducherry. 3. From a reading of the MA (supra) preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue asserts that the impugned action of Tribunal is erroneous since it didn’t consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 198 (SC), wherein the Apex Court confirmed the action of the Hon’ble Madras High Court repelling similar grounds raised by the assessee that notice issued before levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was invalid since the notice issued by the AO [u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act] had reflected both the two (2) limbs of Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. Further, according to the Revenue, since the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. (supra) has been rendered in the year 2022, it nullifies the following other decisions cited in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal: 1. CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) 2. CIT, Bangalore Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) 3. Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras-HC) 4. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 ( FB ) (Bom) (HC) Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 4 :: 4. Per contra, Ld.AR brought to our notice that similar MA was preferred by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., in MA No.118/Chny/2024 for AY 2014-15 which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 12.09.2025, by holding as under: This is a Miscellaneous Application preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order of this Tribunal in ITA No.794/Chny/2024 for AY 2014-15 passed on 26.07.2024 in the aforesaid captioned case. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The above appeal was disposed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order in ITA No.794/Chny/2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 dated 26.07.2024. The appellant, in respect of assessment year 2014-15, requests to present this petition for rectification of a mistake which is apparent from record u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the said order. 2. The respondent filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal raising issues on the grounds of appeal in I.T.A. No.794/Chny/2024 for the AY 2014-15 against the order of the CIT(A) in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060339204(1) dated 31.01.2024. 3. The ITAT passed an order dated 26.07.2024 in ITA No.794/Chny/2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Appellant submits that the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on legal grounds stating that the penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 31.12.2016 issued by the AO is bad in law. 4. The decision of the ITAT is not in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gangotri Textiles Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 137 taxmann.com 198 (SC) wherein it has dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on the contention that notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was defective on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind while issuing the notice to state as to whether he was of the prima facie view that the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Among the decisions, which were relied on emphasis was laid on the decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250. This decision is pressed into service to substantiate the contention that if the notice does not specify as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) is attracted, the penalty proceedings are vitiated. 6. The High Court, Madras by impugned order held that since assessee did not act bona fide therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 5 :: Act was rightly levied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has concurred with the findings of the Hon'ble High Court above and accordingly dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee and the case has been decided in favour of Revenue. 7. This in effect also nullifies the ruling in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows case as the said case was followed while delivering the order in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com.250. 8. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to rectify the order dated 26.07.2024 in ITA No.794/Chny/2024 which allowed the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-15 by entertaining the Miscellaneous Petition of the department which is filed u/s 254(2) of Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld.DR has assailed the action of the Tribunal cancelling/deleting penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) on the ground that the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act was defective and invalid for the failure on the part of the AO not striking down the limbs/fault for levying penalty. According to the Ld.DR, the impugned action of Tribunal is erroneous since it didn’t consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 198 (SC), wherein the Apex Court confirmed the action of the Hon’ble Madras High Court repelling similar grounds raised by the assessee that notice issued before penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was invalid since the notice issued by the AO [u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act] had reflected both the two (2) limbs of Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. Further, according to the Revenue, since the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. (supra) has been rendered in the year 2022, it nullifies the following other decisions cited in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal: 5. CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) 6. CIT, Bangalore Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) 7. Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras-HC) 8. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 ( FB ) (Bom) (HC) And therefore, impugned order of the Tribunal needs to be recalled and decided on merits. 4. Per contra, the Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. was decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court by order dated 25.08.2020 in favour of the Revenue and the SLP preferred by the assessee has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, refusing to exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and thus, dismissal of the SLP was an action without going into the merits of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Therefore, the Counsel asserted that dismissal of SLP in limine by passing a non-speaking order without indicating any reasons for its dismissal implies that the Supreme Court has decided not to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal filed before it. For such a proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala reported in [2000] 6 SCC 359 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 6 :: \"A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared. ...iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.\" 5. Hence, the Ld.Counsel submitted that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court refusing Special Leave Peititon to appeal doesn’t attract the doctrine of merger and doesn’t substitute in place of the order under challenge the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to be the declaration of Law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Ld.Counsel, the dismissal of SLP in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd., can’t be said to have nullified the following other decisions cited in the impugned order of the Tribunal: 1. CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) 2. CIT, Bangalore Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) 3. Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras-HC) 6. Further, according to the Ld.AR, facts involved in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. (supra), was clearly distinguishable as discussed infra and therefore, the decision cannot be said to have judicial precedence to the case in hand. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. (supra) has clearly found in the facts of that case the assessee therein had understood the contents/ faults spelt out in the notices issued u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act and observed that there was indeed concealment of the particulars of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Moreover in that case, the Hon’ble High Court noted that the legal ground assailing the defect in the notice was raised for the first time before it and therefore, declined to entertain the same by holding that such a ground doesn’t raise a substantial question of law. Therefore, the Gangotri Textiles (supra) was distinguishable on the facts and therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present assessee. Moreover, the Ld.AR drew our attention to the fact that the order in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. (supra) in favour of the Revenue was passed on 25.08.2020 whereas the decision in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Mad.)(HC) was passed after 08.12.2020 and by the very same Judge, Hon’ble Justice T.S. Shivagnanam, who had taken note of the decision in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd v. ACIT reported in [2018] 403 ITR 407 which was challenged by Sundaram Finance before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP which was dismissed and reported in [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC). Having considered all the contentions of the Revenue and after considering a host of decision, their Lordships was pleased to hold in the case of Babuji Jacob (supra) that the notice initiating penalty proceedings if found to be defective and invalid, imposition of penalty vitiated/un-warranted. Therefore, according to the Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 7 :: Ld.AR, there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record which would warrant interference from our side. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the action of this Tribunal holding the penalty notice issued by the AO u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act to be defective/invalid and therefore, legally untenable and consequently deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The defect noticed in the impugned order was that the AO issued notice proposing penalty, without striking down the limbs/faults which are not applicable for the facts of the assessee’s case for the proposed levy of penalty. The main contention of the Revenue is that the Tribunal had not taken notice of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. (supra). According to the Revenue, similar legal issue [defective notice] was raised by that assessee initially before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, which contention/issue was repelled by the Hon’ble High Court and thereby the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass an order in favour of the Revenue by order dated 25.08.2020. And such a decision was challenged by the assessee before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP which was dismissed on 18.02.2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which order reads as under: We have heard Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Special Leave petitions stand dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. 8. According to the Revenue, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the action of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. (supra), similar legal issue raised by the assessee in respect of defective notice should have been answered against the assessee. And by not doing so, the Tribunal erred in answering in favour of the assessee. Further according to the Revenue, since the SLP has been dismissed in 2022, all other orders cited by the Tribunal in the impugned order stands nullified. We don’t agree with the contention of the Revenue. Doctrine of merger doesn’t take place when the Hon’ble Supreme Court refuses Special Leave to appeal. In other words, the order of the Hon’ble High Court [under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court] doesn’t get substituted by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This position of law has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself that SLP dismissal or refusal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to entertain Special Leave to appeal before it doesn’t mean that the order challenged before it, gets substituted by the order of the Supreme Court and in such an event the doctrine of merger doesn’t take place. In other words, the order challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court [in this case, the Hon’ble Madras High Court] doesn’t merge with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, it can’t be held to be a declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. For such a proposition, we rely on the following decisions: I. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000)6 SCC 359 Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 8 :: II. Khoday Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane (2019) 2 SCC 136 9. Having said so, we also find force in the submission of the Ld.AR that the order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd., was on the peculiar facts of that case and so, it is distinguishable. And in that case, the defect in the notice was raised for the first time before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, which was also a fact, the Hon’ble High Court noted to refuse admission of the same; and secondly, the Hon’ble High Court took note of the distinguishing facts of the case, wherein the assessee didn’t disclose about the sale of its land & windmill in its RoI filed u/s.139(1) of the Act on 26.09.2012 and after ‘13’ months of issuance of statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, the assessee by letter dated 03.03.2015, admitted that due to oversight, it didn’t offer the capital gains in its return and attached a summary of total income adjusting profit on the LTCG & STCG; and even at that stage, didn’t bother to file revised return. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Hon’ble High Court wondered as to how the assessee while responding to the penalty notice dated 12.03.2015, could have asserted that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged, sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court took note of the fact that, the assessee didn’t disclose about the sale of the land & windmill in its return which fact/omission was clearly discernable from the perusal of the RoI/ITR, wherein, at the relevant column, it is stated as ‘nil’. In such factual back ground, the Hon’ble High Court held that “it will not only be a case of filing of inaccurate particulars, but also a case of concealment of income” meaning in the peculiar facts both faults are attracted. Therefore, in the aforesaid factual back ground, the assessee having understood the ingredients of the penalty proposed to be levied against it, coupled with the omission on the part of the assessee of not raising the invalidity/legal issue pertaining to the notice before the Ld.CIT(A)/Tribunal, refused to entertain the legal issue regarding defect in the notice and was of the view that there was no substantial question of law against the action of the Tribunal confirming the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the decision rendered in Gangotri Textiles Ltd., is distinguishable on the peculiar facts of that case and therefore, dismissal of the SLP refusing leave to appeal, as noted supra would not come to the aid of the Revenue to wipe out the stare-decisis/judicial precedent of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob (supra). Therefore, we don’t find any merits in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Tribunal which was passed citing the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob (supra) and a host of other decision; and hence, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue stands dismissed. 10. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. Since the Revenue couldn’t point out any changes in facts or law, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we dismiss the MA filed by the Revenue. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 9 :: 6. Before parting, we would like to observe that the Revenue’s MA (supra) has wrongly quoted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. (supra). In the MA filed by the JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-2, Coimbatore, the JCIT has stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. as under: The Hon'ble Supreme in the order cited supra has adjudicated, “we could safely conclude that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued under Section 274 r/w Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a pled at this belated stage”. 7. The aforesaid quote is erroneous and misleading. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has instead held as under in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd supra: We have heard Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Special Leave petitions stand dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. 8. The aforesaid incorrect quote by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order is very serious and we expect the JCIT as well as the Superior Officers who approved the filing of MA before this Tribunal to be careful in future Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 10 :: lest it will attract contempt action by Constitutional Court, which should be avoided in future. 9. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 25th day of March, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, \u0019दनांक/Dated: 25th March, 2026. TLN आदेश क \u0017ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0018/Appellant 2. \u0019\u001aथ\u0018/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु /CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0019ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड#फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com TUMMALACHA RLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA Date: 2026.03.26 15:20:32 +05'30' "