1. Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. CIT

114 TTJ 706Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#22068 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Judgments citing 1. Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. CIT

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…aced at pages 14 to 25 & 26 to 30 of the Judgment Set. If the department is not able to prove the proper service of notice, then the whole proceedings are void abinitio. xv) Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Lucknow bench of the ITAT, as reported in 114 TTJ 706, copy placed at pages 31 to 33 of the Judgment Set, wherein, it has been held that when the assessee took the plea that there was no proper service upon him, it is for the revenue to place the relevant material to substantiate the plea that the assessee was served with a proper notice. In our case, despite our challenge to the service of notice,…

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…aced at pages 14 to 25 & 26 to 30 of the Judgment Set. If the department is not able to prove the proper service of notice, then the whole proceedings are void abinitio. xv) Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Lucknow bench of the ITAT, as reported in 114 TTJ 706, copy placed at pages 31 to 33 of the Judgment Set, wherein, it has been held that when the assessee took the plea that there was no proper service upon him, it is for the revenue to place the relevant material to substantiate the plea that the assessee was served with a proper notice. In our case, despite our challenge to the service of notice,…

Mohd. Murtuza Siddiqui, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 155/ALLD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69Section 80C

…to law and fact. Regarding service of notice u/s 148, the appellant invites the attention of your kindself towards following judicial pronouncements: 1. Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 694 (Cal.) 2. Income Tax Officer v. Bedi Enterprises [2008] 114 TTJ 706 (Lucknow Trib.) 3. Rajeev Kumar Doneria v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2005] 94 ITD 345 (Agra Trib.) 4.Auram Jewellery Exports (P.) Ltd v. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Noida [2017],88 taxmann.com 633[Delhi Tribunal]. 5. Smt. S. Nachiar v. ITO [2010] 326 ITR 77 (Mad.) 4.5 In this regard the appellant submitted that the learned…

1. Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. CIT (114 TTJ 706) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax