CIT v. Avtar Singh (304 ITR 333)

Sumitra Devi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

ITA 2499/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…ourt in the case of V. Narayan Chetty vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC). (ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Ahanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 173 (SC) (iii) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Avtar Singh (2012) 304 ITR 333 (P&H). (iv) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v Laxmi Narain (2008) 168 Taxman 128 (P&H). (v) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (2009) 311 ITR 235 (DHC). (vi) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H). (vii) Hon'ble High Court of K…

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…rother of the assessee, it has been held that there was no proper service of notice. The copy of the judgment is in the Judgment Set at pages 6 to 9 & 10 to 13 of the Paper Book. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Avtar Singh as reported in 304 ITR 333, has held as under:- "Held, the Commissioner (Appeals), as well as the Tribunal had recorded a pure finding of fact, after considering the material available on record to the effect that notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was actually not served upon the assessee for the assessment year 1998-99, which was a condition precedent…

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…rother of the assessee, it has been held that there was no proper service of notice. The copy of the judgment is in the Judgment Set at pages 6 to 9 & 10 to 13 of the Paper Book. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Avtar Singh as reported in 304 ITR 333, has held as under:- "Held, the Commissioner (Appeals), as well as the Tribunal had recorded a pure finding of fact, after considering the material available on record to the effect that notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was actually not served upon the assessee for the assessment year 1998-99, which was a condition precedent…

Dharmendra Vadilal Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, -32(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the legal grounds raised by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3603/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri. P. D. Chougule, SR. DR

Section 111ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 68

…contended that the mere issuance of notice without service tantamount to the violation of the mandatory conditions prescribed by the Act. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Avtar Singh, [2008] 304 ITR 333 (Punjab and Haryana) and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra vs. Union of India, [2019] 108 taxmann.com 491 (Bombay). 10. The learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) for the revenue on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the assessment order has categoric…

Shrimati. Harbhajan Kaur, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 (20, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69

…upon the assessee. Similar is the position of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and u/s 143(2) of the Act. For this proposition reliance was placed on a) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Avtar Singh High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (2008) 219 CTR (P&H) 588 : (2008) 304 ITR 333 : (2008) 5 DTR 55 Pg. 38 to 41 case laws. b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. LaxmiNarain High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (2008) 1 DTR (P&H) 209: (2008) 168 Taxman 128. Pg. 42 to 45 case laws. c) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mani Kakar High Court Of Delhi (2009) 18 DTR (Del) 145 : (2009) 178 Taxman 315 Pg. 46 to 48 case laws. d) Commissioner Of…

Ritz Theater vs. Income Tax Officer

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any

ITA/978/2010HC Delhi25 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 67(2)

…IT, 113 ITR 22, Rawatmal Harak Chand v. CIT, 125 ITR 346, CIT v. Rane Break Lining, 272 ITR 405, Pun Kunnam Traders v. Additional ITO, Kotayam, 83 ITR 508, Deep Chand Kothari v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) and CIT v. Avtar Singh, 304 ITR 333. 12. The tribunal distinguished the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and after placing reliance on CIT v. Sun Engineering, 198 ITR 297 came to hold that the CIT(A) could not have delved into the issue of limitation as the same was put to rest by him as well as by the tribunal and, in fact, had no right to look in…

CIT v. Avtar Singh

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on