Ashok Chaddha v. ITO

337 ITR 399High Court2011#341 most cited

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.

252

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ashok Chaddha v. ITO · section 153A assessment · section 143(2) notice · unexplained jewellery · Stridhan · CBDT Instruction 1916 · section 69A addition · search assessment procedure · modest customary jewellery · no specific notice 143(2)

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 38769 DTR 82

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 115BBESection 68
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbe(b)section 2(28c)section 117section 271aab(1a)section 37bsection 271aaatime barred assessmentsection 245dsection 144baincome tax settlement commissionsection 153a(1)(a)unexplained jewellery

Judgments citing Ashok Chaddha v. ITO

ACIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. Poonam Malhotra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8081/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 24

…1 Cross ITA. 7995/Del/2019 AND ITA. 8081/Del/2019 Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Delhi. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 7995/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2017-18) Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Prop. Vs. DCIT, M/s. Poonam Deep Buillions and Central Circle : 4, Jewellers, D–58, Upper Ground Floor, New Delhi. Kamla Nagar, Delhi – 110 007. PAN No. AAJPM4153D AND I.T.A. No. 8081/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2017-18) ACIT, Vs. Ms. Poonam Malhotra, 5562/4, New Chandrawal, Central Circle : 4, Gali No. 4, Delhi–110 006. New De…

Poonam Malhotra, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-04, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7995/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 24

…1 Cross ITA. 7995/Del/2019 AND ITA. 8081/Del/2019 Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Delhi. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 7995/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2017-18) Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Prop. Vs. DCIT, M/s. Poonam Deep Buillions and Central Circle : 4, Jewellers, D–58, Upper Ground Floor, New Delhi. Kamla Nagar, Delhi – 110 007. PAN No. AAJPM4153D AND I.T.A. No. 8081/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2017-18) ACIT, Vs. Ms. Poonam Malhotra, 5562/4, New Chandrawal, Central Circle : 4, Gali No. 4, Delhi–110 006. New De…

Rakesh Kumar Bansal, Gujrat vs. DCIT, Central Cercle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2516/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…authorities below. In so far as the non issue of notice u/s 143(2) is concerned the Ld. DR referring to page 13 para 6.7 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order submits that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok 13 I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2022 Chadha Vs. ITO [337 ITR 399] held that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 18. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the materials placed before me. In so far as service of notice u/s 143(2) is concerned the Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs. ITO (supra) consid…

Geeta Bansal, Gujrat vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2515/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…authorities below. In so far as the non issue of notice u/s 143(2) is concerned the Ld. DR referring to page 13 para 6.7 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order submits that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok 13 I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2022 Chadha Vs. ITO [337 ITR 399] held that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory for finalization of assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 18. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the materials placed before me. In so far as service of notice u/s 143(2) is concerned the Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs. ITO (supra) consid…

Madhurendra Nath, Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 16/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…licable to block assessment u/s 158BC. However, no parallel reference to section 143(2) has been made in section 153A. A contention similar to the one raised before the Tribunal was also made before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del). Repelling such a contention, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically laid down that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is not a requirement for completing the assessment u/s 153A. While holding so, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra). Similar propos…

Smt. Neeta Nath L/H of Late Dr. Jitendra Nath, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…licable to block assessment u/s 158BC. However, no parallel reference to section 143(2) has been made in section 153A. A contention similar to the one raised before the Tribunal was also made before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del). Repelling such a contention, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically laid down that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is not a requirement for completing the assessment u/s 153A. While holding so, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra). Similar propos…

Gyanendra Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. The ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 49/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gyanendra Singh Shekhawat cuke The ACIT Vs. 101, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road Central Circle-2 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AMCPS 4557 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Re…

Manorma V. Rathi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 778/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Manorma V. Rathi Vs. The Acit, Circle 21(1) C/O G.P. Mehta & Co. C-10, Vi Floor, Cas., 807, Tulsiani Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Chambers, 212, Nariman Bandra Kurla Complex, Point, Mumbai Bandra (E), 400 021 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabpr3678Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Hoshang B. Irani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(C)

…tice u/s 143(2) could not be contemplated compulsory for assessment u/s 153A of the Act. The same view has been confirmed by various court’s (i) Ashok Chhadda Vs. ITO ITA No.778/Mum/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 8 Smt. Manorma V. Rathi Vs. The ACIT, Circle 21(1) (2001) 337 ITR 399 (2012) 20 taxman.com 387 (Del); (ii) Tarsem Singla Vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana (2017) 81 taxman.com 347 (P &H); (iii) Roshanlal Verma Vs. DCIT, CC-11, Faridabad (2018) ITAT Delhi. We have also perused the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 referred by the assessee and noticed that the said judgement was in…

Panna Lal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 84/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra (CIT)
Section 132(4)Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69

…oing so it is ignored that the jewellery found is a reasonable possession considering the status and standing of the assessee and his family members. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO 69 DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, consi…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Panna Lal Kumawat, Jaipur

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

ITA 165/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra (CIT)
Section 132(4)Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69

…oing so it is ignored that the jewellery found is a reasonable possession considering the status and standing of the assessee and his family members. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO 69 DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, consi…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…sessee comprising of 3 male members, 3 ladies and 4 children can't be presumed to be excessive/ unreasonable considering the status of assessee. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO 69 DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, consi…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1231/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…sessee comprising of 3 male members, 3 ladies and 4 children can't be presumed to be excessive/ unreasonable considering the status of assessee. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO 69 DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, consi…

Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…sessee comprising of 3 male members, 3 ladies and 4 children can't be presumed to be excessive/ unreasonable considering the status of assessee. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO 69 DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, consi…

Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…sessee comprising of 3 male members, 3 ladies and 4 children can't be presumed to be excessive/ unreasonable considering the status of assessee. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO 69 DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, consi…

ACIT, Allahabad vs. M/S Sunsine Infrastate Pvt Ttd, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

ITA 103/ALLD/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 May 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Parveen Godbole,CA
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 103/Alld/2017 and C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (arising out of ITA No. 103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited,Allahabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH “DB”, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT), BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner of Sunshine Infraestate Income-tax, Central Circle, v. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. PAN: AANCS9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (arising out of ITA No.10…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Dr.P.S.Prasad, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1570/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)Section 153ASection 153C

…. Here the expression "so far as it may" appearing in section 153A comes into operation. 5. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the issue of notice u/s.143(2) is not required has found judicial approval in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 387 wherein it was held that "The words 'so far as may be' in col.(a) of sub-sec(1) of sec. 153A could not be interpreted that the issue of notice u/s.143(2) as mandatory in case of assessment u/s.153A. The use of words 'so far as may be' cannot be stretched to the extent of mandatory issue of notice under scc.143(2). As is noted, a specific n…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…2-13, therefore, there was no requirement to issue notice under section 143(2) and therefore the assessment has been validly made under section 143(3). The ld. CIT-DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi HC) for the legal proposition that issue of notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory for finalization of assessment under section 153A of the Act. Decision 36 We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also considered their written submissions and material placed on record before us which was referred to at the time of hearin…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…2-13, therefore, there was no requirement to issue notice under section 143(2) and therefore the assessment has been validly made under section 143(3). The ld. CIT-DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi HC) for the legal proposition that issue of notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory for finalization of assessment under section 153A of the Act. Decision 36 We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also considered their written submissions and material placed on record before us which was referred to at the time of hearin…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…2-13, therefore, there was no requirement to issue notice under section 143(2) and therefore the assessment has been validly made under section 143(3). The ld. CIT-DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi HC) for the legal proposition that issue of notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory for finalization of assessment under section 153A of the Act. Decision 36 We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also considered their written submissions and material placed on record before us which was referred to at the time of hearin…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…2-13, therefore, there was no requirement to issue notice under section 143(2) and therefore the assessment has been validly made under section 143(3). The ld. CIT-DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi HC) for the legal proposition that issue of notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory for finalization of assessment under section 153A of the Act. Decision 36 We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also considered their written submissions and material placed on record before us which was referred to at the time of hearin…