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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Fortune Vanijya Private Limited, Guwahati

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 21/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…provision in the Act requiring the assessment to be made under section 153A/153C after issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In this regard, we may gainfully rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO (337 ITR 399) wherein it was held as under: 9. There is no specific provision in the Act requiring the assessment made under s. 153A to be after issue of notice under s. 143(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) wherein it was held that the w…

E.Shamsudeen vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/90/2016HC Kerala26 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260

…sued beyond the time limit stipulated under the proviso to Section 143(2), and hence time-barred? iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was justified in relying on the decision in Ashok Chaddha CIT, reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Delhi); which was rendered in a clearly distinguishable set of facts and not applicable to the case of the appellant? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -8- not the the Appellate Tribunal, erred in interpreting Section 153A and Section 143, more particularly, when the assessing authorit…

E.Shamsudeen vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/106/2016HC Kerala26 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260

…sued beyond the time limit stipulated under the proviso to Section 143(2), and hence time-barred? iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was justified in relying on the decision in Ashok Chaddha CIT, reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Delhi); which was rendered in a clearly distinguishable set of facts and not applicable to the case of the appellant? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -8- not the the Appellate Tribunal, erred in interpreting Section 153A and Section 143, more particularly, when the assessing authorit…

E.Shamsudheen vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/96/2016HC Kerala26 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260

…sued beyond the time limit stipulated under the proviso to Section 143(2), and hence time-barred? iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was justified in relying on the decision in Ashok Chaddha CIT, reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Delhi); which was rendered in a clearly distinguishable set of facts and not applicable to the case of the appellant? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -8- not the the Appellate Tribunal, erred in interpreting Section 153A and Section 143, more particularly, when the assessing authorit…

E.Shamsudeen vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/105/2016HC Kerala26 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260

…sued beyond the time limit stipulated under the proviso to Section 143(2), and hence time-barred? iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was justified in relying on the decision in Ashok Chaddha CIT, reported in (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Delhi); which was rendered in a clearly distinguishable set of facts and not applicable to the case of the appellant? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought ITA No. 90 of 2016 & Con.cases -8- not the the Appellate Tribunal, erred in interpreting Section 153A and Section 143, more particularly, when the assessing authorit…

Chhavi Anand, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 9098/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Smt. Chhavi Anand, ACIT, F-14/50, 1st Floor, Central Circle-06, Model Town-II, New Delhi Delhi-110009 PAN-ADGPD9947E Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Mayank Patwari, CA Revenue by Sh. R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.10.2019 of the learned CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in…

Anila Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 69ASection 69C

…R. in defense of his argument relied on the following decisions: 11 ITA No.7290/M/2018 & ors. Mrs. Anila Rasiklal Mehta & ors. a) CIT vs. Ratanlal Atanlal Vyaparilal Jain 78 CCH 0569 Guj HC 235 CTR 0568 45 DTR 0290 339 ITR 0351 b) Ahok Chaddha vs. ITO (2012) 69 DTR 82 (Del) c) Ritu Bajaj vs. DCIT 52 CCH 0166 63 ITR (Trib) 0594 (Delhi) d) Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 53 CCH 0355, (2018) 170 ITD 0580 (Delhi) e) Kumkum Kanodia vs. DCIT, Central Circle-11, ITA No.5260/Del/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 (Circular No.1916 dated 11/4/1994 covers Diamond Jewellery also) f) Mrs. Nawaz Singhania vs. DCIT 191 TTJ 0650, 162 DTR 0137, 168 ITD…

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 6702/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) has been issued and served on the assessee after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 153A. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs ITO 20 Taxmann.com 387 to hold that issuance off notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory in respect of order passed u/s 153A. He submitted that though the issue is decided against the ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 39 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra assessee in the said judgment, however, the said j…

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 6701/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) has been issued and served on the assessee after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 153A. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs ITO 20 Taxmann.com 387 to hold that issuance off notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory in respect of order passed u/s 153A. He submitted that though the issue is decided against the ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 39 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra assessee in the said judgment, however, the said j…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5334/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) has been issued and served on the assessee after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 153A. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs ITO 20 Taxmann.com 387 to hold that issuance off notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory in respect of order passed u/s 153A. He submitted that though the issue is decided against the ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 39 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra assessee in the said judgment, however, the said j…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) has been issued and served on the assessee after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 153A. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs ITO 20 Taxmann.com 387 to hold that issuance off notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory in respect of order passed u/s 153A. He submitted that though the issue is decided against the ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 39 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra assessee in the said judgment, however, the said j…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) has been issued and served on the assessee after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 153A. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs ITO 20 Taxmann.com 387 to hold that issuance off notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory in respect of order passed u/s 153A. He submitted that though the issue is decided against the ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 39 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra assessee in the said judgment, however, the said j…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5330/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) has been issued and served on the assessee after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 153A. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs ITO 20 Taxmann.com 387 to hold that issuance off notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory in respect of order passed u/s 153A. He submitted that though the issue is decided against the ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 39 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra assessee in the said judgment, however, the said j…

Paraminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4576/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) has been issued and served on the assessee after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 153A. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs ITO 20 Taxmann.com 387 to hold that issuance off notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory in respect of order passed u/s 153A. He submitted that though the issue is decided against the ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 39 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra assessee in the said judgment, however, the said j…

Paraminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4575/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) has been issued and served on the assessee after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 153A. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs ITO 20 Taxmann.com 387 to hold that issuance off notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory in respect of order passed u/s 153A. He submitted that though the issue is decided against the ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 39 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra assessee in the said judgment, however, the said j…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6807/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…the assessment order on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act, this ground deserve to be rejected in view of the decision of the Hon.ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha K Income-tax Officer [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi).wherein distinguishing CIT (Asst.)v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) it is held that a specific notice is required to be issued under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 153A calling upon the persons searched or requisitioned to file return, that being so, no further notice under section 143(2) can be contemplated for assess…

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6656/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…the assessment order on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act, this ground deserve to be rejected in view of the decision of the Hon.ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha K Income-tax Officer [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi).wherein distinguishing CIT (Asst.)v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) it is held that a specific notice is required to be issued under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 153A calling upon the persons searched or requisitioned to file return, that being so, no further notice under section 143(2) can be contemplated for assess…

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3752/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…the assessment order on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act, this ground deserve to be rejected in view of the decision of the Hon.ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha K Income-tax Officer [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi).wherein distinguishing CIT (Asst.)v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) it is held that a specific notice is required to be issued under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 153A calling upon the persons searched or requisitioned to file return, that being so, no further notice under section 143(2) can be contemplated for assess…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3751/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…the assessment order on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act, this ground deserve to be rejected in view of the decision of the Hon.ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha K Income-tax Officer [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi).wherein distinguishing CIT (Asst.)v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) it is held that a specific notice is required to be issued under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 153A calling upon the persons searched or requisitioned to file return, that being so, no further notice under section 143(2) can be contemplated for assess…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3750/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…the assessment order on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act, this ground deserve to be rejected in view of the decision of the Hon.ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha K Income-tax Officer [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi).wherein distinguishing CIT (Asst.)v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) it is held that a specific notice is required to be issued under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 153A calling upon the persons searched or requisitioned to file return, that being so, no further notice under section 143(2) can be contemplated for assess…