DAKSHIN DAMODAR RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANKURA MORE, MUCHKHANDA vs. ACIT, CIR-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the consistent error in mentioning the Assessment Year and Financial Year in the notices and the assessment order demonstrated a serious non-application of mind by the AO, constituting a fatal and incurable defect. This defect was not curable under Section 292B of the Act, even if the assessee had participated in CIT(A) proceedings without raising this specific issue. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an assessment order framed by the AO following a remand, arguing that the assessment was invalid as the AO mistakenly mentioned a different Assessment Year (AY 2012-13 instead of AY 2008-09) and Financial Year in all notices and the assessment order. Although a corrigendum was later issued to correct the AY/FY, the assessee contended that this fundamental error rendered the entire proceeding void ab-initio.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order and associated notices are invalid if the Assessment Year and Financial Year are incorrectly stated, and if such a defect is curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 254,Section 274,Section 271,Section 271(1)(c),Section 292B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.02.2024 for the AY 2008-09. 02. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order framed by the ld. AO u/s 14(3)/144/254 of the Act vide order dated 18.03.2015. 03. The facts in brief are that this being the second round before the Tribunal. In the first found vide order dated 23.05.2013, the co- ordinate Bench has restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO in assessee’s cross appeals in ITA No. 432/KOL/2012 filed and the Revenue’s appeals in ITA No.
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 274
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
