29. In 'Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. and Others v. J.B. Panchal, ITO and Another

162 ITR 331High Court1986#16885 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 29. In 'Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. and Others v. J.B. Panchal, ITO and Another

M/S. Revera Milk & Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1974/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1974/मुं/ 2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) M/S. Revera Milk & Foods Pvt. Ltd., 610, Tulsiyani Chambers, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aadcm-0732-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147

…the absence of any pending proceedings the notice issued u/s. 131 of the Act is bad in law. To support this contention ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. vs. J.B. Panchal, ITO, 162 ITR 331(Bom). (iv) The forth and the last contention raised by the assessee assailing reopening of assessment is that the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings had examined the issue in detail. The assessee complied with all the notices issued during regular assessment proceedings and after having examined all the documents the Assessing…

Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kumar VermaFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 147Section 148

…can exercise the power vested on them under section 131(1), and not otherwise. 28. And this position stands judicially acknowledged in various judicial pronouncements, as follows. 29. In 'Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. and Others vs. J.B. Panchal, ITO and Another', 162 ITR 331 (Bom.), for two years, the assessment orders were passed. For a third year, assessment proceedings became time barred. Subsequently, the assessee received from the ITO, summons under section 131(1) of the I.T. Act, calling upon the assessee to furnish information, documents and books of account on various points specified therein, in respect of t…

Ramkrushna Zilbaji Thakre, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrad -4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dr. Milind Bhusare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…avor of assessee, should have been considered which appellate authority failed to do. In this context reference is invited to decisions of Jurisdictional High court in CIT Vs Tata Sons Pvt Ltd 1974. 97 ITR 128 (Bombay) and Jamnadas Medhavji & Co Vs ITO (1986. 162 ITR 331 Born). It is respectably submitted that it has been held by the High Court of Bombay that the practice and the policy established one High Court must ordinarily accept the view taken by another High Court on the interpretation of the Section of statue which is an all India statue . 29. It is submitted that appellate authority also failed to take…

Chirag Bharambhai Masani, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2260/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2260/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…Section 147 of the Act is ‘belief’ and not ‘suspicion’. It is well settled that ‘reason to believe’ is not the same as ‘reason to doubt’ or ‘reason to suspect’. Difference between two steps are vital and substantial as held in Jamnadas Madhavji and Co. (1986) 162 ITR 331 (Bom.). Thus ‘reason to believe’ is of higher pedestal and requires fulfillment of strictier test. The ‘belief’ cannot be a mere pretense nor can it be a mere doubt or suspicion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) also underscored the fact that the words of the statute are ‘reasons to believe’ and not ‘reason…

Young Indian, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (Inv.), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5303/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Young Indian, Addl. Dit (Inv.), Unit- 4, 5A, Herald House, New Delhi. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, CA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 138

…t that any income has been concealed or likely to be concealed by any person even though no proceedings with respect to such persons is pending before him. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jamnadas Madhavji vs. ITO, 162 ITR 331 it was submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that powers u/s. 131(1) cannot be exercised when there are no proceedings pending before the income tax officer. Insertion of section 131(lA) nullifies the effect of that decision, thereby empowering certain authorities to issue summons even in absence of pending proceed…

29. In 'Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. and Others v. J.B. Panchal, ITO and Another (162 ITR 331) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax