Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153, Section 144, Section 234B, Section 271(1)(c), Section 132.

336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer

Q: How many judgments cite 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (190 ITR 464), spanning 2019 to 2025.

190 ITR 464High Court1991#7726 most cited

What is 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer authority for?

An assessment order is time-barred if it is dispatched after the statutory time limit, even if dated before it.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer · 1991 · 190 ITR 464 · section 153 · assessment order time barred · dispatch date · limitation period · ITAT · speed post tracking

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153 Section 144 Section 234B Section 271(1)(c)Section 132 Section 147 Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 156 agricultural income section 153b section 234b income-tax officer section 263 section 271(1)section 26 section 234 section 153 section 23 section 271

Judgments citing 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer

Neha Diwan, Hindmotor vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 630/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…3777 I.T.A. No.: 630/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Neha Diwan. 5.1 It is submitted that similar view has been taken in the following decisions as well: i. CIT vs. Kappumalai Estate - (1998) 234 ITR 167 (Ker) ii. K. Joseph Jacob vs. Agrl. ITO & Anr. (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) iii. Malayil Mills vs. State of Kerala - (TRC Nos. 15 and 69 of 1991) 6. As regards section 68 of the Act, the assessee in para 11 has submitted that as per section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source t…

Writemen Media Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

…following judicial pronouncements:  CIT V BJN Hotels Ltd [2016] 382 ITR 110 (Karn).  CIT Vs. Purshottamdas T Patel (1994) 209 ITR 52 (Guj)  Baba Ji Rice Mills Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 41 PHT 197 (PVT)  K.Joseph Jacob Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer 190 ITR 464 (Ker).  Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Kappumalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker). 9. He further submitted that similar question of law was framed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT (supra). He further submitted that the Order of Assessment ought to have been left the Office of the AO on or before…

M/S. Rosewood Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 582/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…ed post which showed that the order was in fact dispatched only on 7th January, 2017 although it was dated 30th December, 2016. Relying on decisions in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker), the ITAT came to the conclusion that the order of assessment had to be made on or before 31st December, 2016 and since it was dispatched only on 7th January, 2017 and delivered to the Assessee on 9th January, 2017 it the time barred. 6. Mr. Chimanka…

M/S. Rosewood Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 581/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2051/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Instrumentation Laboratory Vs. Dcit India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(2) 1471-1476, 14Th Floor, New Delhi Aggarwal Millennium Tower- 2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aabci6557N Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

…arred by limitation. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case." 13. To the same effect are the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which are in the case of (i) K. Joseph Jacob vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer & another (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and (ii) Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker). 14. The Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal also held similarly in the case of Shanti Lal Godawat and Others vs. ACIT, reported in 126 TTJ (Jd) 135. 11 Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 15. In view of above plethora of judicial…

Shri. Rahul Udayashankar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 869/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 11Section 143Section 250Section 69A

…ITA No.869/Bang/2023 Shri Rahul Udayashankar, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Shri Rahul Udayashankar, Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Represented by his GPA Holder International Taxation, Shri C Udayashankar, Ward-2(1), 851-C, 17th G Main, Bengaluru. 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010. PAN – ADCPU 8060 D APPELANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Annamalai, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept. Date of hearing : 03.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 O…

Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

…under section 153, though the assessment order was passed within time, the assessment had become time barred." 3.7 Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Joseph Jacob Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer 190 ITR 464 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "The Hon'ble Court held that "an order of assessment comes into force only when it is communicated. This is not only by reason of Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore Page 8 of 25 Section 30, 'but also for a more fundamental reason, namely, that a party against whom an order is made must be put on not…

The Principal, Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Andhra Pradesh vs. M/S Nidan, Infront of Dig Office, Berhampur

ITA/150/2018HC Orissa13 Jul 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 132Section 144Section 153Section 153B

…ost which showed that the order was in fact despatched only on 7th January, 2017 although it was dated 30th December, 2016. Relying on decisions in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker), the ITAT came to the conclusion that the order of assessment had to be made on or before 31st December, 2016 and since it was despatched only on 7th January, 2017 and delivered to the Assessee on 9th January, 2017 it was time barred. 6.…

The Principal, Commissioner of It (Central) vs. M/S Nidan, Berhampur

ITA/155/2018HC Orissa13 Jul 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 132Section 144Section 153Section 153B

Serene Country Owners welfare Association vs. Income Tax Officer

ITTA/155/2018HC Telangana20 Jan 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala vs. Shri Subhajit Paul, Agartala

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

…barred by limitation. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case.” 13. To the same effect are the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court, which are in the case of (i) K. Joseph Jacob vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer & another (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and (ii) Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker). 14. The Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal also held similarly in the case of Shanti Lal Godawat and Others vs. ACIT, reported in 126 TTJ (Jd) 135. 15. In view of above plethora of judicial precedents, in our considered opinion, the decision of Ho…

ACIT, Circle-50(1), Kolkata vs. Sunil Agarwal, Kolkata

ITA 1194/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1194/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Circle-50(1), Kolkata Vs. Sunil Agarwal Da-12, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Actpa 4135 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Cross Objection No.10/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A Nos.1194/Kol/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sunil Agarwal Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), Kolkata . Da-12, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Actpa 4135 D (Cross-Objector) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri C. J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross-Objection For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 15, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed In Case No.112/Cit(A)-15/15-16/Dcit,Cc- 4(3)/R&T/Kol U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA

Section 143(3)

…Jodhpur) 6. CIT vs. M/s. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand & Sons - 2008 TMI- 3777 (P &HHC) 7. M/s. Dilip Mohan Seth vs. ITO - ITA No. 2110/Kol/2009 (ITAT, Kolkata) 8. CIT vs. Kappumalai Estate- (1998) 234 ITR 167 (Ker) 9. K. Joseph Jacob vs. Agrl. ITO & Anr. (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker). 10. Malayil Mills vs. State of Kerala - (TRC Nos. 15 and 69 of (1991) As assessee had leveled serious allegation that assessment order u/s. 143(3) was not passed within the time limit of 31/03/2014, it was important to look into this issue. Accordingly, AO was requested to intimate the date of service of the assessment order. In his repor…

Pankaj Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3557/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu, Acountant Member

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .Nos. 3556 & 3557/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS – 2010-11 & 2011-12) vs PANKAJ SHARMA, DCIT, CENTRAL C/O M/S O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, CIRCLE, C-763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, NEW DELHI – 110 025 (PAN: AWYPS9585Q) CGO COMPLEX-1, HAPUR ROAD, GHAZIABAD UP (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the respecti…

Pankaj Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3556/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu, Acountant Member

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A