What is Ashok Chaddha v. ITO authority for?

In search assessments under section 153A, a notice under section 143(2) is not required if a notice under section 153A(1)(a) has been issued. Modest or customary jewellery, commensurate with age and status, found during a search, especially if it is 'Stridhan' or falls within CBDT guidelines, cannot be added as unexplained income.

How many judgments cite Ashok Chaddha v. ITO?

252 judgments on BharatTax cite Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (337 ITR 399), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ashok Chaddha v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 148.

Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (337 ITR 399)

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 142/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…sition would be no different even if the returns were filed in the regular course. Mr Dileep Shivpuri relied on the decision of this Court in Ashok Chaddha v. ITO: (2011) 7 Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 141 & 142/RPR/2026 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) in support of its contention that no notice under Section 143(2) was required to be issued." 12. Having noticed the aforesaid contention, the Division Bench proceeded to hold as under:- "9. It is now well established that if the AO does not accept the return filed by the Assessee on its face and he is required to issue a notice under Sect…

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…sition would be no different even if the returns were filed in the regular course. Mr Dileep Shivpuri relied on the decision of this Court in Ashok Chaddha v. ITO: (2011) 7 Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 141 & 142/RPR/2026 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) in support of its contention that no notice under Section 143(2) was required to be issued." 12. Having noticed the aforesaid contention, the Division Bench proceeded to hold as under:- "9. It is now well established that if the AO does not accept the return filed by the Assessee on its face and he is required to issue a notice under Sect…

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…143(2) of the Act is not a necessary precondition for the same. He contended that the position would be no different even if the returns were filed in the regular course. Mr Dileep Shivpuri relied on the decision of this Court in Ashok Chaddha v. ITO: (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) in support of its contention that no notice under Section 143(2) was required to be issued." 12. Having noticed the aforesaid contention, the Division Bench proceeded to hold as under:- "9. It is now well established that if the AO does not accept the return filed by the Assessee on its face and he is required to issue a notice under Sect…

SMT. NIRMAL PURI,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5709/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…o benefit could be given for the said instruction to the assessee. The judgements of hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Sushila Devi Vs. CIT reported in [2016] 76 Taxmann.com 163 (Delhi) and in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO reported in [2011] 14 Taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) relied upon by the assessee are also not applicable to the facts of the present case where in both the cases, the hon'ble high court allowed the benefit of the CBDT instructions dt. 11.5.1994 and further the benefit of 'Stree Dhan' for the jewellery found during the search and not for the Bullion found. It is also a matter of fact t…

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

…the second notice issued u/s 153A dated 03.08.2021, therefore, the Assessing Officer had not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even otherwise also referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 161 (Mad), he submitted that t…

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

…the second notice issued u/s 153A dated 03.08.2021, therefore, the Assessing Officer had not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even otherwise also referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 161 (Mad), he submitted that t…

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

…the second notice issued u/s 153A dated 03.08.2021, therefore, the Assessing Officer had not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even otherwise also referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 161 (Mad), he submitted that t…

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

…the second notice issued u/s 153A dated 03.08.2021, therefore, the Assessing Officer had not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even otherwise also referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 161 (Mad), he submitted that t…

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 607/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

…the second notice issued u/s 153A dated 03.08.2021, therefore, the Assessing Officer had not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even otherwise also referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 161 (Mad), he submitted that t…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA B. KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1896/PUN/2024[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

…the second notice issued u/s 153A dated 03.08.2021, therefore, the Assessing Officer had not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even otherwise also referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 161 (Mad), he submitted that t…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1895/PUN/2024[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

…the second notice issued u/s 153A dated 03.08.2021, therefore, the Assessing Officer had not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even otherwise also referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 161 (Mad), he submitted that t…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1894/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

…the second notice issued u/s 153A dated 03.08.2021, therefore, the Assessing Officer had not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even otherwise also referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 161 (Mad), he submitted that t…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) VS. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1st Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: ABFPS-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA & Sh…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) VS. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1st Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: ABFPS-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA & Sh…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) VS. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1st Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: ABFPS-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA & Sh…

SUNIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 635/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahaysunil Gupta, Vs. Acit, Circle 55(1), 4/1733, Bhola Nath Nagar, New Delhi Mahavir Block, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032 (Pan: Aaopg6063B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ca Thakur Repudaman & Ca Anurag Gupta Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: CA THAKUR REPUDAMAN AND CA ANURAG GUPTAFor Respondent: SHRI MAHESH KUMAR, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…17.10.2016 and no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued and hence the entire assessment is vitiated. In reply, Ld. CIT(DR) stated that this issue now stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) wherein, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered this issue that in the case of search assessment, there is no requirement of any notice to be issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, vide para no. 14, as under:- “14. No specific notice was required under s. 143(2) of the Act when the notice in the present case as required under s. 153(A)(1)(a) of…

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

ITA 2896/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

…(A) found that she was aged about 67 years and that the quantity of jewellery in her possession about 263.83 grams was modest, customary, and commensurate with her age and status. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chadha v. ITO (337 ITR 399), he held that such possession was not abnormal and that no addition could be made merely because the jewellery was found during search. He accordingly deleted the addition of ₹6,93,100. 81. We have considered the facts and the orders of the authorities below. The reasoning given by the CIT(A) deserves to be endorsed. The quantities of jewellery…

PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6(1), NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

ITA 2318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

…(A) found that she was aged about 67 years and that the quantity of jewellery in her possession about 263.83 grams was modest, customary, and commensurate with her age and status. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chadha v. ITO (337 ITR 399), he held that such possession was not abnormal and that no addition could be made merely because the jewellery was found during search. He accordingly deleted the addition of ₹6,93,100. 81. We have considered the facts and the orders of the authorities below. The reasoning given by the CIT(A) deserves to be endorsed. The quantities of jewellery…

RAMA AGRAWAL, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.490/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rama Agrawal 33A, I. E. Bhilai, S.O Industrial Estate, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8359N

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…143(2) of the Act is not a necessary precondition for the same. He contended that the position would be no different even if the returns were filed in the regular course. Mr Dileep Shivpuri relied on the decision of this Court in Ashok Chaddha v. ITO: (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) in support of its contention that no notice under Section 143(2) was required to be issued." 12. Having noticed the aforesaid contention, the Division Bench proceeded to hold as under:- "9. It is now well established that if the AO does not accept the return filed by the Assessee on its face and he is required to issue a notice under Sect…

HARJEET SINGH CHHABRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIPUR (ERST. ITO-1(3), RAIPUR), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Harjeet Singh Chhabra H. No.84, Las Vista, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adkpc0408P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 4

…143(2) of the Act is not a necessary precondition for the same. He contended that the position would be no different even if the returns were filed in the regular course. Mr Dileep Shivpuri relied on the decision of this Court in Ashok Chaddha v. ITO: (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) in support of its contention that no notice under Section 143(2) was required to be issued." 12. Having noticed the aforesaid contention, the Division Bench proceeded to hold as under:- "9. It is now well established that if the AO does not accept the return filed by the Assessee on its face and he is required to issue a notice under Sect…

Ashok Chaddha v. ITO

What is Ashok Chaddha v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Ashok Chaddha v. ITO

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

SMT. NIRMAL PURI,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PUNE

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA B. KADAM, PUNE

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

SUNIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR, PUNE

PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6(1), NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI

RAMA AGRAWAL, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

HARJEET SINGH CHHABRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIPUR (ERST. ITO-1(3), RAIPUR), RAIPUR