CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears

362 ITR 673Supreme Court of India2014#122 most cited

What is CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears authority for?

The recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite for assessments under Section 153C, and the six-year limitation period for such assessments is reckoned from the date this satisfaction is recorded.

528

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,295 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears · section 153C · satisfaction note · jurisdictional prerequisite · limitation period · seized material · assessment year · block period · search assessment · section 158BD

Also reported as

43 Taxmann.com 446223 Taxmann 115

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 144Section 115BBESection 292C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 158bcsection 144asection 144basatisfaction notesection 158bblock periodsection 158section 153c(1)documents seizedsection 292c

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears

Madhu Narpat Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2155/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta - CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri - DR
Section 153A

…f search. He further submitted that the additions were also made based on the seized material by the Assessing Officer. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhina 362 ITR 673 (SC) and submitted that satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is based on seized materials and the additions were made based on the seized material. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the case-laws relied on. The short point for consideration in all these appeals before going into…

Narpat Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2154/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta - CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri - DR
Section 153A

…f search. He further submitted that the additions were also made based on the seized material by the Assessing Officer. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhina 362 ITR 673 (SC) and submitted that satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is based on seized materials and the additions were made based on the seized material. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the case-laws relied on. The short point for consideration in all these appeals before going into…

Smt G Lakshmi Aruna, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all these seven appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1451/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain & Shri Madhur Jain AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT &
Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI S.K.YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1451 to 1457(Bang) 2014 (Assessment years : 2005 – 06 to 2011 – 12) Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna, No.8, Havambavi, Siruguppa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bellary – 583103 PAN: AFJPA5974P Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mayank Jain & Shri Madhur Jain Advocates Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT & Shri Praveen S., DCIT Central Circle – 1 (3) Date of hearing : 26-08-2016 Date of pronounc…

Gali Janardhana Reddy, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1444/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: S/Shri Mayank Jain & Madhur Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) &
Section 132Section 153CSection 158B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1444 to 1450/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2005-06 to 2011-12 Shri Gali Janardhana Reddy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.8, Ashoknagar, Havamabavi, Income Tax, Siruguppa Road, Circle 1(3), Bellary - 583 101. Bangalore. PAN: AFBPR 9737D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : S/Shri Mayank Jain & Madhur Jain, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) & Shri S. Praveen S., DCIT, CC, 1(3) Date of hearing : 26.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vidhya Shankar Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6571/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate and Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6569/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITA No.6570/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITA No.6571/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, Central Circle 9, vs. M/s. Vidhya Shankar Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 402, Amber Tower, Naniwala Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. (PAN : AAACV4336K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate and Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Poramita Tripathy, CIT DR Date of Hearing :…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vidhya Shankar Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6570/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate and Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6569/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITA No.6570/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITA No.6571/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, Central Circle 9, vs. M/s. Vidhya Shankar Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 402, Amber Tower, Naniwala Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. (PAN : AAACV4336K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate and Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Poramita Tripathy, CIT DR Date of Hearing :…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vidhya Shankar Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6569/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate and Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6569/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITA No.6570/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITA No.6571/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, Central Circle 9, vs. M/s. Vidhya Shankar Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 402, Amber Tower, Naniwala Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. (PAN : AAACV4336K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate and Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Poramita Tripathy, CIT DR Date of Hearing :…

Sri. Sakala Narasimhulu Chetty, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.117/Bang/2016 is allowed, whereas all other appeals are dismissed

ITA 118/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Respondent: Shri Jahanzeb Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 244A

…os.117 to 125/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 11 and it revealed escapement of income for initiation of action u/s.153C of the Act, having regard to the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS reported in 362 ITR 673. 7. Without prejudice to the above, when the appellant sought for the basis or the reasons for issuing the notice u/s.153C of the Act, and the learned A.O. not having furnished the reasons before he proceeded with the assessment, such assessment order is bad in law and as it is in violation to the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'bl…

Sri. Sakala Narasimhulu Chetty, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.117/Bang/2016 is allowed, whereas all other appeals are dismissed

ITA 117/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Respondent: Shri Jahanzeb Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 244A

…os.117 to 125/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 11 and it revealed escapement of income for initiation of action u/s.153C of the Act, having regard to the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS reported in 362 ITR 673. 7. Without prejudice to the above, when the appellant sought for the basis or the reasons for issuing the notice u/s.153C of the Act, and the learned A.O. not having furnished the reasons before he proceeded with the assessment, such assessment order is bad in law and as it is in violation to the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'bl…

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…s issued u/s.153A, the A.O. is statutorily required to frame the assessment for the six assessment years falling immediately preceding the year of search. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears 362 ITR 673 (SC) , wherein Supreme Court observed that we have to look in the provisions of section 153A as the machinery provision. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71) in support of the proposition that clear admission in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4)…

G.R. Pandya Share Broking Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 533/MUM/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, Mr. BipinFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh, DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 153C

…be referred to for special audit. From all these angles, it is the prayer of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the assessment has to be treated as null and void in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears [362 ITR 673]. 8. Referring to the issue of satisfaction note, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to page 55 of the paper book furnished by the Ld DR for the Revenue dated 7.9.2015 and mentioned that the said page of satisfaction note recorded by the common AO (common to the search person and the other person) in the case of the assessee, who c…

ACIT Cen Cir-I, RG0-2, Mumbai vs. Rehab Hsg. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4110/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 153A

…which has escaped assessment. In this context, learned Departmental Representative also referred to CBDT Circular no.7/2003 dated 5th Sept 2003. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Calcutta Knitwears, [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC), has held that the provision of section 158BC and 158BD of the Act, as existed earlier for assessment of search related cases are machinery provision and, therefore, has to be construed in literal sense and cannot be interpreted in a different manner. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Suprem…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

…the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the appeals were allowed. 52. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee are as under: (a) In Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Calcutta Knitwears [(2014)362 ITR 673 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question, as to at what stage of the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B, the Assessing Authority was required to record his satisfaction for issuing notice under Section 158BD of the Act. In that case, the facts were that a search operation under Section - 57 - 132 of the Act…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/403/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

…the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the appeals were allowed. 52. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee are as under: (a) In Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Calcutta Knitwears [(2014)362 ITR 673 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question, as to at what stage of the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B, the Assessing Authority was required to record his satisfaction for issuing notice under Section 158BD of the Act. In that case, the facts were that a search operation under Section - 57 - 132 of the Act…

The Commisioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2014HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

…the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the appeals were allowed. 52. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee are as under: (a) In Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Calcutta Knitwears [(2014)362 ITR 673 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question, as to at what stage of the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B, the Assessing Authority was required to record his satisfaction for issuing notice under Section 158BD of the Act. In that case, the facts were that a search operation under Section - 57 - 132 of the Act…

Haryana Paneer Bhandar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA/537/2015HC Delhi05 Nov 2015
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 158BSection 69D

…” to conclude that the seized documents show that some undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the searched person. Explaining the mandatory nature of this requirement, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) observed as under: “41. We would certainly say that before initiating proceedings under section 158BD of the Act, the Assessing Officer who has initiated proceedings for completion of the assessments under section 158BC of the Act should be satisfied that there is an undisclosed income which has been traced out when a person was sear…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I vs. C.J. International Hotels Pvt. Ltd

ITA/57/2015HC Delhi09 Feb 2015
Section 153Section 2Section 201

…und out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years.” 9. More recently in Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC), the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the correct position in law as to the initiation of income tax proceedings. Although, the context of the dispute was in respect of recording of a satisfaction note as to the initiation of proceedings against third parties under erstwhile Section 158BD of the Act which did not prescribe t…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I vs. C.J. International Hotels Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 57 / 2015HC Delhi09 Feb 2015
Section 153Section 2Section 201

…und out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years.” 9. More recently in Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC), the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the correct position in law as to the initiation of income tax proceedings. Although, the context of the dispute was in respect of recording of a satisfaction note as to the initiation of proceedings against third parties under erstwhile Section 158BD of the Act which did not prescribe t…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sudhir Dhingra

The appeals are partly allowed in the

ITA/287/2009HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 260A

…which decided all the appeals and other cases, on the question of law as to the reasonableness of the time limit within which a notice under Section 158BD was to be issued. The Supreme Court, in its judgment reported as CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhina 362 ITR 673 (SC), inter alia, recorded as follows: “44. In the result, we hold that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. The satisfaction note could be pre…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sudhir Dhingra

The appeals are partly allowed in the

ITA-287/2009HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 260A

…which decided all the appeals and other cases, on the question of law as to the reasonableness of the time limit within which a notice under Section 158BD was to be issued. The Supreme Court, in its judgment reported as CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhina 362 ITR 673 (SC), inter alia, recorded as follows: “44. In the result, we hold that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. The satisfaction note could be pre…