B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT

107 ITR 409Reported decision1977#6817 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BBSection 139Section 143(2)Section 282

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 292bbsection 282section 292bsection 292section 29service of noticesection 149section 28escapement of incomereason to believenotice under section 148

Judgments citing B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…ely because an assessee may have participated in the proceedings, the requirement of service of proper notice upon the person in accordance with the legal require-ment under section 148 of the Act is not dispensed with. In B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 409 (J&K), the notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee under section 22(2) of the 1922 Act. The notice was served on an employee of the assessee who was not authorised to accept such notice. Sub-sequently, the general manager of the assessee applied for extension of time for filing the return, which was allowed by the Income-tax O…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…rely because an assessee may have participated in the proceedings, the requirement of service of proper notice upon the person in accordance with the legal require-ment under section 148 of the Act is not dispensed with. In B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 409 (J&K), the notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee under section 22(2) of the 1922 Act. The notice was served on an employee of the assessee who was not authorised to accept such notice. Sub-sequently, the general manager of the assessee applied for extension of time for filing the return, which was allowed by the Income-tax O…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 23(2), NEW DELHI vs. SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5823/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

…at there is presumption to be drawn under General Clauses Act 1897. Section 292BB of the Act merely provides that notice is deemed to be valid in certain circumstances but there is no presumption of issuance and then service. In B. Johar Forest Works vs. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K), it was held that the notice must be served in one of modes provided in the Act before an assessee could be considered to be default. However, acquisition of knowledge in regard to issuance of a notice, the Hon’ble Court held, could not be considered as equivalent to, or a substitute for, the service of the notice on the assessee. A similar…

SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 5485/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

…at there is presumption to be drawn under General Clauses Act 1897. Section 292BB of the Act merely provides that notice is deemed to be valid in certain circumstances but there is no presumption of issuance and then service. In B. Johar Forest Works vs. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K), it was held that the notice must be served in one of modes provided in the Act before an assessee could be considered to be default. However, acquisition of knowledge in regard to issuance of a notice, the Hon’ble Court held, could not be considered as equivalent to, or a substitute for, the service of the notice on the assessee. A similar…

SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3382/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

…at there is presumption to be drawn under General Clauses Act 1897. Section 292BB of the Act merely provides that notice is deemed to be valid in certain circumstances but there is no presumption of issuance and then service. In B. Johar Forest Works vs. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K), it was held that the notice must be served in one of modes provided in the Act before an assessee could be considered to be default. However, acquisition of knowledge in regard to issuance of a notice, the Hon’ble Court held, could not be considered as equivalent to, or a substitute for, the service of the notice on the assessee. A similar…

PSA NITROGEN LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Devesh K. Malan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 84/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 PSA Nitrogen Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-1, LGF, Lajpat Nagar-III, Ward-19(2), New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACP0953G Assessee by : Sh. Devesh K. Malan, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-22, N…

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…JP/2020_ M/s Girirajkripa Developers P ltd. Vs ITO proceedings, the requirement of service of proper notice upon the person in accordance with the legal requirement under Section 148 of the Act is not dispensed with. 40. In B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 409 (J&K) the notice issued by the ITO to the Assessee under Section 22 (2) of the 1922 Act. The notice was served on an employee of the Assessee who was not authorized to accept such notice. Subsequently, the General Manager of the Assessee applied for extension of time for filing the return, which was allowed by the ITO. However, the return was not…

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…may have participated in the proceedings, the requirement of service of proper notice upon the person in accordance with the legal requirement under Section 148 of the Act is not dispensed with. Is In B. Johar Forest Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1977) 107 ITR 409 (J&K) the notice issued by the ITO to the Assessee under Section 22 (2) of the 1922 Act. The notice was served on an employee of the Assessee who was not authorized to accept such notice. Subsequently, the General Manager of the Assessee applied for extension of time for filing the return, which was allowed by the However, the return was not file…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…tion of Persons (AOP), instead of the AOP. Reference in this context was made to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which as noticed in R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) were different. 29. B. Johar Forest Works versus Commissioner of Income Tax, [1977] 107 ITR 409 (J&K) related to imposition of penalty due to non-compliance of notices under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. 30. Dina Nath versus Commissioner of Income Tax, [1993] 204 ITR 667 (J&K) was an extraordinary case, in which service of notice under Section 143(2) was affected and the assessment order was passed on the same day, making…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LIMITED

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…tion of Persons (AOP), instead of the AOP. Reference in this context was made to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which as noticed in R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) were different. 29. B. Johar Forest Works versus Commissioner of Income Tax, [1977] 107 ITR 409 (J&K) related to imposition of penalty due to non-compliance of notices under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. 30. Dina Nath versus Commissioner of Income Tax, [1993] 204 ITR 667 (J&K) was an extraordinary case, in which service of notice under Section 143(2) was affected and the assessment order was passed on the same day, making…

SMT. NALINI SHYAM MOUNDEKAR,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 4(1),, NAGPUR

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed as above

ITA 516/NAG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 144Section 148Section 5

…1 ITA Nos. 516,517&518/Nag/2014. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. Nos. 516, 517 & 518/Nag/2014. Assessment Year : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06. Late Shri Shyam Anand Moundekar, The Income-tax Officer, L/H Smt. Nalini Shyam Moundekar, Vs. Ward-4(1), Nagpur. Nagpur. PAN AICPM6255D. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri K.P. Dewani. Respondent by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Date of Hearing : 23-03-2017. Date of Pronouncement : 27th March, 2017. O R D E R. PER BENCH: At the outset we note that there is…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. CHETAN GUPTA

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

ITA/72/2014HC Delhi15 Sept 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…participated in the proceedings, the requirement of service of proper notice upon the person in accordance with the legal requirement under Section 148 of the Act is not dispensed with. 40. In B. Johar Forest Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1977) 107 ITR 409 (J&K) the notice issued by the ITO to the Assessee under Section 22 (2) of the 1922 Act. The notice was served on an employee of the Assessee who was not authorized to accept such notice. Subsequently, the General Manager of the Assessee applied for extension of time for filing the return, which was allowed by the ITO. 2015:DHC:7656-DB…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT LTD

ITA - 1604 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…undertake the said exercise. So, that case is also absolutely distinguishable from the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the cases of Fateh Chand Agarwal v. CWT, 97 ITR 701 (Orissa); B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K) and R.L. Narang v. CIT, 136 ITR 108 (Del). All these cases relate to service of notice on persons, not authorised by of the assessee. That being not the position in the present case, these cases are not applicable. 2011:DHC:1792-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THREE EXIM PVT LTD

ITA - 1778 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…undertake the said exercise. So, that case is also absolutely distinguishable from the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the cases of Fateh Chand Agarwal v. CWT, 97 ITR 701 (Orissa); B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K) and R.L. Narang v. CIT, 136 ITR 108 (Del). All these cases relate to service of notice on persons, not authorised by of the assessee. That being not the position in the present case, these cases are not applicable. 2011:DHC:1793-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD.

ITA/1778/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…undertake the said exercise. So, that case is also absolutely distinguishable from the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the cases of Fateh Chand Agarwal v. CWT, 97 ITR 701 (Orissa); B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K) and R.L. Narang v. CIT, 136 ITR 108 (Del). All these cases relate to service of notice on persons, not authorised by of the assessee. That being not the position in the present case, these cases are not applicable. 2011:DHC:1793-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD.

ITA/1604/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…undertake the said exercise. So, that case is also absolutely distinguishable from the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the cases of Fateh Chand Agarwal v. CWT, 97 ITR 701 (Orissa); B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K) and R.L. Narang v. CIT, 136 ITR 108 (Del). All these cases relate to service of notice on persons, not authorised by of the assessee. That being not the position in the present case, these cases are not applicable. 2011:DHC:1792-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010…

B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT (107 ITR 409) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax