A.A. Kochnadi v. Agriculture ITO

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJNIL SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., Room No.91, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. 2B Grant Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcr3491C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pitambar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.320/15-16/2297 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

…and though the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain their writ petitions challenging the service of notice, the assessees should not have been allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court." 12. In case of A.A. Kochnadi v. Agriculture ITO, 110 ITR 406, their Lordships of Kerala High Court observed as under: "Where service of a notice on the assessee or his authorized agent or an adult member of his family is not possible, statutes authorize substituted service and such service attributes constructive knowledge of the assessee. To I.T.A. No. 7782/Del/2019 attribute such constructive knowledge,…

SHRI MAHIPAL,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 20000-01 Shri Mahipal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ward-Ii(4), Advocate, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad Main Bazar, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad -121004. Pan: Atvpp9291R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 Order

…and though the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain their writ petitions challenging the service of notice, the assessees should not have been allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court." 12. In case of A.A. Kochnadi v. Agriculture ITO, 110 ITR 406, their Lordships of Kerala High Court observed as under: "Where service of a notice on the assessee or his authorized agent or an adult member of his family is not possible, statutes authorize substituted service and such service attributes constructive knowledge of the assessee. To I.T.A. No. 7782/Del/2019 attribute such constructive knowledge,…

SHUAIB AHMED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 65(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

…and though the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain their writ petitions challenging the service of notice, the assessees should not have been allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court." 12. In case of A.A. Kochnadi v. Agriculture ITO, 110 ITR 406, their Lordships of Kerala High Court observed as under: "Where service of a notice on the assessee or his authorized agent or an adult member of his family is not possible, statutes authorize substituted service and such service attributes constructive knowledge of the assessee. To 6 I.T.A. No. 7782/Del/2019 attribute such constructive knowled…