What is Banarsi Debi v. ITO authority for?

For income-tax notices, particularly under Section 34(1) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Sections 147/148 of the 1961 Act), there is no real distinction between the 'issue' and 'service' of a notice. The word 'issued' must be given a wider meaning, effectively encompassing 'served'.

How many judgments cite Banarsi Debi v. ITO?

63 judgments on BharatTax cite Banarsi Debi v. ITO (53 ITR 100), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Banarsi Debi v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 149, Section 142(1), Section 69A.

Banarsi Debi v. ITO (53 ITR 100)

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

…from the end of the relevant assessment year. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.' The High Court relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Banarsi Debi v. ΙΤΟ [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC) where the validity of a notice under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 and the scope of section 4 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1959 by which sub-section (4) was introduced into section 34 were considered. This court indicated, keeping the provisions of section 34 in view, that there was really no distinction between 'i…

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

…s from the end of the relevant assessment year. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.' The High Court relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Banarsi Debi ν. ΙΤΟ [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC) where the validity of a notice under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 and the scope of section 4 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1959 by which sub-section (4) was introduced into section 34 were considered. This court indicated, keeping the provisions of section 34 in view, that there was really no distinction between 'i…

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 347/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147(6)Section 148Section 250Section 34

…On that day, i.e., 31-3-1970, the ITO issued a notice to the assessee under section 147(6) by registered post which was received by the assessee on 4-3-1970. On writ, the High Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Banarsi Devi v. ITO. [1964] 53 ITR 100 wherein it was held that section 34 of the 1922 Act, conferred jurisdiction on the ITO to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundations of jurisdiction. The High Court, accordingly, quashed the notice for reassessment issued under section 147(6). O…

PUNEET SETH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2155/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysh. Puneet Sheth Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1) B-39, Mension Villas, Gurugram Rose Wood City, Haryana – 122001 Sector-49, Gurugram Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aojps4547R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

Section 140Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234A

…s and from the end of the relevant assessment year. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of s. 151." The High Court relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case Banarsi Debi vs. ITO (1964) 53 ITR 100 (SC), where the validity of a notice under s. 34(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, and the scope of s. 4 of the IT (Amendment) Act of 1959 by which sub-section (4) was introduced into s. 34 were considered. This Court indicated keeping the provision of s. 34 in view, that there was realist no distinction between the "Issue" and "Service of notice”. S…

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

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

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

…risdiction. The same view has been taken by this court in Jani v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt [1969] 72 ITR 595 as also in CIT v. Robert [1963] 48 ITR 177 (SC). The High Court, in our opinion, went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100, in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149, in the 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between " issue of notice" and "ser…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

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

…s so inclined. The principle stated under (4)\nhereinbelow is only another way of looking at the same aspect\nas is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle.\"\n10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi\nDebi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 has held that wider meaning of\nthe word \"issued\" must be accepted. The Hon'ble Allahabad\nHigh Court in the case titled as Sri Niwas v. ITO, [1956] 30.\nITR 381, has also interpreted the word \"issued\" to mean\n\"served\".\n11. The procedure to be followed upon receipt of the Notice\ncame to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\nc…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

…s so inclined. The principle stated under (4)\nhereinbelow is only another way of looking at the same aspect\nas is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle.\"\n10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi\nDebi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 has held that wider meaning of\nthe word \"issued\" must be accepted. The Hon'ble Allahabad\nHigh Court in the case titled as Sri Niwas v. ITO, [1956] 30.\nITR 381, has also interpreted the word \"issued\" to mean\n\"served\".\n11. The procedure to be followed upon receipt of the Notice\ncame to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\nc…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

…nt or distinct principle." different or distinct principle." 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 [1964] 53 ITR 100 has held that wider meaning of has held that wider meaning of the word "issued" must be accepted. The Hon'ble Allahabad the word "issued" must be accepted. The Hon'ble Allahabad the word "issued" must be accepted. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case titled as Sri Niwas v. ITO, [1956] 30. rt in the case titled as Sri Niwa…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

…nt or distinct principle." different or distinct principle." 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 [1964] 53 ITR 100 has held that wider meaning of has held that wider meaning of the word "issued" must be accepted. The Hon'ble Allahabad the word "issued" must be accepted. The Hon'ble Allahabad the word "issued" must be accepted. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case titled as Sri Niwas v. ITO, [1956] 30. rt in the case titled as Sri Niwa…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, J.P. BHAVAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 340/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…diction on the ITO to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment. The High Court, in our opinion, lost sight of the distinction and under a wrong basis felt bound by the judgment in Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC). As the ITO had issued notice within limitation, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated. The ITO shall now proceed to complete the assessment after complying with the requirement of law. Since there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents, we make no orders for costs. 8.3. Clearly there is a distinction i…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 339/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…diction on the ITO to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment. The High Court, in our opinion, lost sight of the distinction and under a wrong basis felt bound by the judgment in Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC). As the ITO had issued notice within limitation, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated. The ITO shall now proceed to complete the assessment after complying with the requirement of law. Since there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents, we make no orders for costs. 8.3. Clearly there is a distinction i…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), KOCHI vs. M/S GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 968/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…s, surely not pay-up, eliminating any scope of recovery and, thus, a poor business strategy, is something the law, which has to be given effect to, we are afraid, cannot take cognizance of. Tax statutes are to be strictly construed (Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC)), while in the instant case, the provision of law stands dilated upon and explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Our order merely follows it’s decisions in Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Vijaya Bank (supra), explaining it in the light of the entries passed by the assessee, and t…

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 967/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…s, surely not pay-up, eliminating any scope of recovery and, thus, a poor business strategy, is something the law, which has to be given effect to, we are afraid, cannot take cognizance of. Tax statutes are to be strictly construed (Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC)), while in the instant case, the provision of law stands dilated upon and explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Our order merely follows it’s decisions in Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Vijaya Bank (supra), explaining it in the light of the entries passed by the assessee, and t…

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ts of the exemption provision, implying satisfaction of the essential conditions of the section, are met. Exemptions provisions, as indeed tax statutes, are to be strictly construed: CC v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC); Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ramnath & Co. v. CIT [2020] 425 ITR 337 (SC), affirming [2016] 388 ITR 307 (Ker); Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC). 3 Carmel Convent v. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 3.3 The assessee’s case before us, as before the Revenue authorities, who found it as wholly unsubstantiated, was that there is nothing to infer that…

BIHARI CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. ITO(E), WARD GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3032/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 34

…or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the proceedings taken by the Income- tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void." 26. This was also the basis for the decision in Banarasi Debi v. ITR (1964) 53 ITR 100. However, under the 1961 Act the procedural requirement has been spread over three sections, being Sections 147, 148 and 149. The period of limitation within which notice under Section 148 has to be issued is specified in Section 149. Section 153 (2) of the Act stipulates that no order of re-assessment can be passed beyond the period of one year f…