5(4) Kanpur v. Mahendra Singh Tyagi*

83 Taxmann.com 71Reported decision2017#25881 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 148A Section 151 Section 10(23C)Section 11

Judgments citing 5(4) Kanpur v. Mahendra Singh Tyagi*

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17 to 2017-18) Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Vs. The ITO (Exemption), wd – 1, Shramjivi Ashra Rajkot - 360001 Gorevali Bhuj, Kutch – 370510 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATG8071B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10/03/2026 आदेश / ORDER Per, Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinh…

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

MUKESH KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1698/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1698/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain Dcit बनाम 46, Deewan Rama Road, Corporate Ward-5(2), / Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajpm-5477-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Uttamchand Jain (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Uttamchand Jain (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the assessment has clearly been reopened by non-jurisdictional AO. This being the case, the notice would be bad in law as held by Jodhpur Tribunal in ITO vs Rajender Prasad Gupta (15 Taxmann.com 335) as well as Lucknow Tribunal in ITO vs Mahendra Singh Tyagi (83 Taxmann.com 71). The Jodhpur Tribunal held that where non-jurisdictional ITO recorded reasons for re- opening, completed the assessment of assessee and issued notice u/s 148, such proceedings would be invalid. Similar is the ratio of decision of Lucknow Tribunal. The revenue has submitted that assessee’s PAN was lying with the particular officer who has r…