ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. There was no material found during the search that related to the assessee or had a bearing on their total income, rendering the assessment order void.
What were the facts?
A search was conducted on M/s Binny Ltd. and M/s KLP Projects Pvt Ltd. During the search, it was gathered that M/s Binny Limited had advanced significant sums to seven concerns, which were later found to be bogus. The assessee, MD of M/s Binny Limited, stated these advances were made to generate unaccounted cash for company expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO had valid jurisdiction under Section 153C to issue notices to the assessee based on materials found during a search of other entities. The validity of the assessment order passed under Section 153C was challenged.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 131,Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 132(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(25)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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- CIT v. Kabul Chawla3,235 citing380 ITR 573 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.2,379 citing149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · SC
- CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society1,589 citing397 ITR 344 · 2017 · SC
- Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT962 citing125 ITR 713 · 1980 · SC
- Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar695 citing268 ITR 332 · 2004 · HC
- CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.689 citing380 ITR 612 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal583 citing290 CTR 263 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT567 citing37 ITR 271 · 1959 · SC
- CIT v. President Industries471 citing258 ITR 654 · 2002 · HC
- CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.408 citing418 ITR 315 · 2019 · SC
- ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT282 citing394 ITR 569 · 2017 · HC
- Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd.184 citing86 Taxmann.com 84 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd.172 citing297 ITR 246 · 2017
- New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT139 citing116 Taxmann.com 151 · 2020 · SC · Read judgment
- Agni Vishnu Ventures (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT85 citing460 ITR 438 · 2023 · HC
- (i) Vetrivel Mineral v. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai63 citing129 Taxmann.com 126 · 2021 · HC
- CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah, Citation No.39 citing160 Taxmann 276 · 2007 · SC
- Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences v. ACIT38 citing163 Taxmann.com 666 · 2024 · ITAT
- ACIT v. Saveeta Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences31 citing25 Taxmann.com 138 · 2012
- ICDS Ltd. v. CIT24 citing10 SCC 529
- DCIT v. VVD & Sons (P.) Ltd.14 citing158 Taxmann.com 395 · 2024
- 3/52 GST 355 & CIT v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd.11 citing266 Taxmann 461 · 2019 · SC
- DCIT v. National Standard India Ltd.11 citing85 Taxmann.com 87 · 2017
- CIT v. Late J Chandrasekhar5 citing20 Taxmann.com 451
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Chennai-20, all dated 29.06.2024 for the Assessment
Years (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2014-15 to 2018-19. As the issues
involved across all these appeals were common, they were heard
t
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.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026