1. CIT v. Laxman Das Khandewal

414 ITR 286High Court2019#8486 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 139Section 159(2)(b)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 14bsection 159legal representativesection 292bsection 292section 29notice under section 148section 144bsection 142section 139reassessment proceedingssection 143(2)

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Laxman Das Khandewal

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 447/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Apr 2026AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…return of income was filed on 25.12.2021, renders the impugned reassessment order bad in law. Ld AR referred the following case law in support of his arguments: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal, (2019) 310 CTR (SC) 8. 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO, (2019) 414 ITR 286 (Del). 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 701 (Del). 4. PCIT vs. Shri Jay Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del). 5. CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All). 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 299 (Del). 7. Anil Agarwal HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 2594/Del/2024, dated 30.07.2025 (…

CHANCHAL BANSAL,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO WARD-3 ROHTAK, ROHTAK

ITA 4684/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalchanchal Bansal Vs. Ito Ward-3 Mohallamazid, 14, Aayakarbhawan Ward No.25, Rohtak, Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana – 124001 Haryana – 124507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bicpb3122P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Jain, Ca Ms. Vrishti Jain, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…submitted that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) makes the impugned assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified…

LATE JANKIDEVI NANDLAL JAISWAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI AMIT MOHANLAL JAISWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

ITA 238/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roylate Jankidevi Nandlal Ito, Ward – 4(4), Nagpur Jaiswal Through Lr Amit Vs Mohanlal Jaiswal, 3/14, Balabhaupeth, Panchpaoli Nagpur-440017 Pan : Adgpj 9652 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Himesh Demble, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Himesh Demble, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 159(3)Section 263

…proposition of law: ➢ Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/265 Taxman 515/416 ITR 613 (SC); ➢ Krishnaawatar Kabra v. ITO [2022] 140 taxmann.com 423 (Gujarat); ➢ Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman 412/414 ITR 286 (Delhi); ➢ Sandeep Chopra v. Pr. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 225/292 Taxman 269 (Jharkhand); ➢ SavitaKapila v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 118 taxmnann.com 46/273 Taxman 148/426 ITR 502 (Delhi); 11. Accordingly, in light of the above Rulings, we are of the considered view that the order passed under section 263 of the Act is not valid in the eyes of law, si…

MRS. SUREKHA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2419/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250

…an (supra) provides that notice issued to the legal representatives beyond the period of limitation prescribed is without jurisdiction and unenforceable in law. The judgment in the case of Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman 412/414 ITR 286 (Delhi) is also on the same lines. In addition, the contention of Sri. E.I.Sanmati, learned counsel for the revenue that the notice issued to the dead assessee ought to be saved by virtue of Section 292B, has also been considered in the case of Rajender Kumar (supra), where the Court has rejected such contention. Mrs. Surekha (Legal Rep. of Late…

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1406/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Varun Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 250

…al representatives beyond the period of limitation prescribed is without jurisdiction and unenforceable in law. The judgment in the case of Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman Jadagadder Pakkerappa, Shikaripura Page 16 of 20 412/414 ITR 286 (Delhi) is also on the same lines. In addition, the contention of Sri. E.I.Sanmati, learned counsel for the revenue that the notice issued to the dead assessee ought to be saved by virtue of Section 292B, has also been considered in the case of Rajender Kumar (supra), where the Court has rejected such contention. 19. Section 292B reads as follows…

MONISHA DHAWAN (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR NAYANA DHAVAN),NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 28(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3961/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2013-14 Monisha Dhawan (Through Legal Vs. Acit, Heir Nayana Dhavan), Circle-28(1), 115A, First Floor, Delhi. Jorbagh, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Bbupd2464B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…case, the assessment is, admittedly, bad in law and is, thus, liable to be quashed. In this regard, the Ld. Counsels placed reliance on the following case laws:- (i) Savita Kapila vs. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 502 (Delhi); (ii) Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO (2019) 414 ITR 286 (Delhi); (iii) DCIT vs. Pranav Gupta (2025) 176 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi-Trib); & (iv) Champat Singh (Through L/H Shri Kannu Singh vs. ITO, ITA NO.5623/Del/2024 wherein it has been decided that notice under Section 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee without being served on Legal Heir, that too within the limitation period, was void…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL vs. ASHUTOSH FOODS, NISSING

ITA 234/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ashutosh Foods Income Tax, Karnalkaithal Road, Aayakarbhawan, Nissingkarnal, Sector-12, Karnal Haryana – 132024 Haryana – 132001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfa2840F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…ubmitted that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) makes the impugned assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified…

DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), MORADABAD, MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4528/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7/115, Flat No. B-1, Sai Niwas, Ward 2(1), Arya Nagar, Kanpur - 208020 Moradabad ( U.P) Uttar Pradesh. Pin: 244 001 Pan :Acmpg1836E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69

…submitted that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) makes the impugned assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified…

ANIL AGARWAL HUF,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2594/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2594/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Anil Agarwal Huf Income Tax Officer, F-71,Second Floor, Vs. Ward-28(1), Main Green Park, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aahha2179P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

…mitted that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) makes the impugned assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 4 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time sp…

MARIA ESTIBEIRO,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 34/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)

…available to the Revenue against a dead person was to issue notice to all legal representatives u/s 159, and except this procedure no other procedure has been envisaged in law. 20. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruling in ‘Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO’ [2019, 414 ITR 286 (Del)] is also on the similar lines held that, the notice issued against a dead person ought to have been issued a fresh u/s 159(2)(b) to the legal representatives and such notice drawn in the name of deceased cannot be saved by recourse to Section 292B. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in ‘CIT Vs Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala’ [1971,…

BAIRAJBEN CHAVDA L/H OF LATE BHURABHAI GANDABHAI CHAVADA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…he following decisions:- -Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/265 Taxman 515/416 ITR 613(SC); -Krishnaawatar Kabra v. ITO [2022] 140 taxmann.com 423 (Gujarat); -Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman 412/414 ITR 286 (Delhi); - Sandeep Chopra v. Pr. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 225/292 Taxman 269 (Jharkhand); - Savita Kapila v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 118 taxmnann.com 46/273 Taxman 148/426 ITR 502 (Delhi); I.T.A No. 19/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. 4 Bairajben Chavda L/H of Late Bhurabhai Gandabhai Chavda vs. ITO On merit, the ld. A.R. submitted that the wife of t…

PPG COATING INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2168/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2168/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ppg Coatings India Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-13(1)(1) Ltd. Mumbai Vs. (Now Merged With Ppg Asian Paints Pvt. Ltd.) The Centrium Phoenix Market City, Lbs, Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai- 400070. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4378K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Revenue By: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 25.01.2017 Pursuant To Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp)-02, Mumbai Passed 27.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Senior Counsel For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Which According To Him Is A Legal Issue & Which Need To Be Adjudicated First, Since If The Legal Issue Is Upheld Then, It Goes To The Root Of The Jurisdiction Of The Ao To Have Passed The Final Assessment Order. The Legal Issue Raised By Assessee Reads As Under;-

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…had catgegorically concluded that there was clerical mistake within the meaning of section 292B and the case had been distinguished by decisions of Delhi, Gujarat and Madras high courts in Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman 412/414 ITR 286; Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 362/261 Taxman 137/413 ITR 276; and Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155/257 Taxman 72. 24. In the circumstances, though the respondents refer to decision of Delhi High Court in case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2018] 90 taxmann.com 413/254 Taxman 109/405…

SMT. RAMPYARI,,SARADDHANA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain (CA)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…2018, the proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147/148 are not valid and a nullity in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions :- Vipin Walia vs. ITO 382 ITR 19 (Delhi) Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Delhi) Tribunal’s Order dated 26th November, 2019 in 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has conducted an enquiry to verify the source of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee prior to issuing the notice under section 148. However, there was no response from the assessee or of the Legal Representative of the a…

1. CIT v. Laxman Das Khandewal (414 ITR 286) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax