M.P. POONIA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, BIKANER
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the addition was based on conjecture and surmises, especially since the assessee's actual withdrawals exceeded the estimated household expenses. Therefore, the addition was vacated.
What were the facts?
The assessee's household withdrawals were deemed insufficient by the AO, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,18,000/-. The CIT(A) sustained this addition, despite the assessee providing details of withdrawals exceeding the AO's estimate.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of low household withdrawals is sustainable when the assessee's declared withdrawals exceed the estimated expenses. Whether procedural grounds regarding limitation and opportunity of hearing render the CIT(A)'s order void.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon623 citing321 ITR 362 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.470 citing305 ITR 227 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Shri Ram Singh180 citing306 ITR 343 · 2008 · HC
- Director of Income Tax v. Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications128 citing323 ITR 249 · 2010 · HC
- Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.105 citing383 ITR 448 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO61 citing90 DTR 289 · 2013 · HC
- Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. v. ACIT50 citing390 ITR 167 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- Anil Goel v. CIT35 citing306 ITR 212 · 2008 · HC
- 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd.16 citing301 ITR 301 · 2008 · HC
- Krishnan v. ITO4 citing52 Taxmann.com 30 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Bikaner [herein after “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 27.09.2018 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Order passed by the CIT (A) rejecting the application filed u/s 154 is barred by limitation. As per section 154(8) the authority shall pass order within 6 months on any application filed (u/s 154) after 1.6.2001. 2. The CIT(A) has rejected the application without providing opportunity of being heard, in spite of specific request for th
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Arun Kumar Maurya, Lucknow vs ITO-2(1), LucknowLucknow30 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. v. ACIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement before passing an assessment order, especially when a return has been filed. Failure to issue this notice...
- Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-1, JaipurJaipur15 Nov 2021Allowed
Also relies on Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. v. ACIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. This absence of notice is a fatal defect that invalidates the entire reass...
- Ramakant Sharma, Jaipur vs ITO, JaipurJaipur2 Dec 2019Allowed
Also relies on Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. v. ACIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement in reassessment proceedings. Since no such notice was issued or served, the subsequent assessment proceedings ar...
- Kamla Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs ITO, JaipurJaipur5 Feb 2018Allowed
Also relies on Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. v. ACIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) in reassessment proceedings, prior to finalizing the order, is fatal and cannot be condoned by Section 292BB. Therefore, the assessment order was s...
- Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 2(1), KolkataKolkata17 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a valid return (considering the extended period) renders the assessment order invalid and a nullity. The a...
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
