202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd.

RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Assailing The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit(A)"]. That The Due Date For Filing The Appeal Was 24Th August, 2024. However, There Has Been An Unintentional Delay Of 166 Days (Upto 13Th February, 2025), In Filing The Present Appeal, For Which The Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

…omission to mention Section 143(2) literally in any one of the notices issued to the assessee would invalidate the assessment order. While in this context, it is relevant to take note of the Division Bench judgment of this court in K. J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301, where a Division Bench of this court has held thus: I.T.A. No. 26/GTY/2025 Rajulhoubienuo Angami The appellant himself had produced annexure A-I which is the reply filed by him pursuant to the details called for by the Assessing Officer. It is seen from annexure A-I that the entire questions raised and considered in the reassessment was answer…

ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

…e omission to mention Section 143(2) literally in any one of the notices issued to the assessee would invalidate the assessment order. While in this context, it is relevant to take note of the Division Bench judgment of this court in K J. Thomas v. CIT [20081 301 ITR 301, where a Division Bench of this court has held thus: 32 Shri Anil Nachrani The appellant himself had produced annexure A-I which the reply filed by him pursuant to the details called for the Assessing Officer. It seen from annexure A-I that the entire Questions raised and considered in the reassessment was answered by the assessee. However, the…

M.P. POONIA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA Nos. 389/Jodh/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2008-09) Sh. M.P. Poonia Vs Income Tax Officer, Sector-26, Opp. Blind Bikaner. Institute, National Institute of Tech. Teacher Training and Research, Chandigarh- 160019. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. ACPPP3629 R (Virtual hearing) Shri T.C. Gupta -C.A. Assessee By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Revenue By 12/07/2023 Date of hearing 04/10/2023 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against t…

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…erification of the assessee‟s claims (CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corp. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del); CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 183 ([2007] 294 ITR 233) (Mad); K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker)). That apart, the fact of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) itself is not conclusively established, i.e., as a fact, inasmuch as non-mention of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in the order cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive of the said fact. It is only thereupon that we could proceed to examine the issue of the same resulting in an absenc…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…erification of the assessee‟s claims (CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corp. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del); CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 183 ([2007] 294 ITR 233) (Mad); K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker)). That apart, the fact of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) itself is not conclusively established, i.e., as a fact, inasmuch as non-mention of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in the order cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive of the said fact. It is only thereupon that we could proceed to examine the issue of the same resulting in an absenc…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…erification of the assessee‟s claims (CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corp. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del); CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 183 ([2007] 294 ITR 233) (Mad); K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker)). That apart, the fact of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) itself is not conclusively established, i.e., as a fact, inasmuch as non-mention of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in the order cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive of the said fact. It is only thereupon that we could proceed to examine the issue of the same resulting in an absenc…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

…erification of the assessee‟s claims (CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corp. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del); CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 183 ([2007] 294 ITR 233) (Mad); K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker)). That apart, the fact of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) itself is not conclusively established, i.e., as a fact, inasmuch as non-mention of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in the order cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive of the said fact. It is only thereupon that we could proceed to examine the issue of the same resulting in an absenc…

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

…h could, therefore, not be before the higher forums for the first time in view of s. 292 BB, even as noted by it earlier in CIT v. Panchvati Motors (P.) Ltd. [2011] 59 DTR 289 (P&H). The Hon’ble Court also relied upon the decision in K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker) wherein, again, a reassessment made without observing the procedure u/s. 143(2) was not regarded, for that reason, invalid; the Hon’ble Court reproducing the relevant part of the said decision, which is as follows: 5 Major Singh v. ITO "The procedure under s. 143(2) of the Act is to ensure that an adverse order is issued only after proper…