What is B.K Gooyee v. CIT authority for?

A notice issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, that is not signed by the Income Tax Officer is invalid and considered no notice at all, as the signature is an essential and integral part of the notice.

How many judgments cite B.K Gooyee v. CIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite B.K Gooyee v. CIT (62 ITR 109), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does B.K Gooyee v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 148A, Section 149(1)(b), Section 192B, Section 271(1)(a).

B.K Gooyee v. CIT (62 ITR 109)

M/S VIBHUTI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…icer, as he appoints. In view of this provision, it must be held that the notice to show cause why penalty should not be levied issued by the ITO should have been signed by the ITO and the omission to do so invalidated the notice. In B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal), the question for consideration was whether the absence of the signature of the ITO on the notice under section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake. Dealingwith this question, Datta J. Observed as follows (p. 119): "In the present case, there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake,…

AMBAR NATH CHAKRAVARTY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1765/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. MadhumitaDas, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 148

…igitally or manually, was invalid and the same would not vest Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess income of the assessee. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of B.K.Gooyee Vs. CIT, reported in [1966] 62 ITR 109 (CAL), held that it is incumbent upon the ITO to place his signature on the notice issued. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to quash the reopening of the assessment made by the AO as well as order framed consequentially. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.…

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 1064/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/ShriFor Respondent: Shri.Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 292CSection 69ASection 69B

…r, notice or document is a body. Body without a soul is of no use, value or consequence. What is the significance and importance of a signature on any document can be found in the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B.K Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109. In that case the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 but did not sign it. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta it was held by their Lordships that the unsigned notice issued by the ITO was invalid and consequently equal to no notice. If we are to agree with the contention of…

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 919/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…icer, as he appoints. In view of this provision, it must be held that the notice to show cause why penalty should hot be levied issued by the ITO should have been signed by the ITO and the omission to do so invalidated the notice. In B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal), the question for consideration was whether the absence of the signature of the ITO on the notice under section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake. Dealingwith this question, Datta J. Observed as follows (p. 119): "In the present case, there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake,…

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

…icer, as he appoints. In view of this provision, it must be held that the notice to show cause why penalty should hot be levied issued by the ITO should have been signed by the ITO and the omission to do so invalidated the notice. In B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal), the question for consideration was whether the absence of the signature of the ITO on the notice under section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake. Dealing with this question, Datta J. Observed as follows (p.119): "In the present case, there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake,…

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/KOL/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…icer, as he appoints. In view of this provision, it must be held that the notice to show cause why penalty should hot be levied issued by the ITO should have been signed by the ITO and the omission to do so invalidated the notice. In B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal), the question for consideration was whether the absence of the signature of the ITO on the notice under section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake. Dealingwith this question, Datta J. Observed as follows (p. 119): "In the present case, there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake,…

BAPPADITYA CHAKRABORTY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-24, HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

Section 271(1)(c)

…f J.K. Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (105 ITR 53) 3. Order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. DCIT (77 TTJ 315) 8.1 The ld. counsel has further relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of B.K. Gooyee vs. CIT (62 ITR 109), wherein, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that the authorised representative or the counsel cannot waive a right of the client without referring the matter to him or to say without his instructions. 9. In this case, we find that the investments made during the year by the assessee were out of his disclosed funds and the investments were…

BAPPADITYA CHAKRABORTY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-24, HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

Section 271(1)(c)

…f J.K. Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (105 ITR 53) 3. Order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. DCIT (77 TTJ 315) 8.1 The ld. counsel has further relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of B.K. Gooyee vs. CIT (62 ITR 109), wherein, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that the authorised representative or the counsel cannot waive a right of the client without referring the matter to him or to say without his instructions. 9. In this case, we find that the investments made during the year by the assessee were out of his disclosed funds and the investments were…

M/S RADHE SHYAM BENI SHYAM KESARY & COMPANY,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICDRF, WARDF 1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 33/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Radhe Shyam Beni Shyam Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur Kesary & Company, Dayalband, Nariyal Kothi, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aahfr 1307 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Tiwari & Mrs. SummedhaFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…cer, as he appoints. In view of this provision, it must be held that the notice to show cause why penalty should hot be levied issued by the ITO should have been signed by the ITO and the omission to do so invalidated the notice. In B. K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal), the question for consideration was whether the absence of the signature of the ITO on the notice under Section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake. Dealing with this question, Datta J. Observed as follows (p. 119): "In the present case, there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake,…

ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. KARAN R. SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 3652/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri Syed Nadeem

Section 133(6)Section 40A(2)(b)

…r, notice or document is a body. Body without a soul is of no use, value or consequence. What is the significance and importance of a signature on any document can be found in the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B.K Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109. In that case the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 but did not sign it. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta it was held by their Lordships that the unsigned notice issued by the ITO was invalid and consequently equal to no notice. If we are to agree with the contention of…

ITO 5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KRANTI IMPEX P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1229/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Officer, 5(2)(2) Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 567, Aayakar 20, Om Darya Mahal, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road 80,Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacck3044P & Co No. 90/Mum/2014 (Arising In Ita No. 1229/Mum/2013 For A.Y. 2004-05) Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 5(2)(2), 901/A-B-E, 9Th Floor Room No. 567, Aayakar The Legend Co-Op Hsg. Soc. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Plot No. 220, Walkeshwar Mumbai-400 020 Road, Mumbai-400 006 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Govind Javeri, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…r, notice or document is a body. Body without a soul is of no use, value or consequence. What is the significance and importance of a signature on any document can be found in the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B.K Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109. In that case the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 but did not sign it. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta it was held by their Lordships that the unsigned notice issued by the ITO was invalid and consequently equal to no notice. If we are to agree with the contention of…

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

…ered in the context of issuance of unsigned notice under Section 148, however the ratio / observations of these decisions would certainly be applicable in the instant case, where unsigned reasons have been provided to the Appellant. • B.K. Gooyeev. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (CAL.) • Dr. Udayan Narayan v. ACIT (ITA. No. 55/PAT/2016) • ITOv. Sh. Vivek Markan (ITA Nos. 663 & 664/DeI/2010) • Umashankar Mishra v. CIT [1982] 11 Taxman 75 (MP) 4. Information regarding share transfer of CIHL was available with AO of CIL during regular assessment proceeding of CIL 4.1 Without prejudice to the above submission given in point n…