How many judgments cite CIT v. Cebon India Ltd.?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Cebon India Ltd. (347 ITR 583), spanning 2015 to 2026.

CIT v. Cebon India Ltd.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Cebon India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, Section 143(3), Section 144.

347 ITR 583High Court2012#2827 most cited

What is CIT v. Cebon India Ltd. authority for?

Non-service of mandatory notices under sections 143(2) or 148 deprives the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction to complete the assessment, and this defect is not curable under section 292BB of the Act. Mere dispatch is not sufficient evidence of notice service.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Cebon India Ltd. · 347 ITR 583 · Section 143(2) notice · Section 148 notice · service of notice · non-service of notice · Assessing Officer jurisdiction · Section 292BB · curable defect · proof of service · invalid assessment

Also reported as

184 Taxmann 29034 DTR 119

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 281b section 245c(1)section 10(26)section 153(2)section 142(2)section 127(2)service pe settlement application section 292bb retraction of statement substantive assessment permanent account number

Judgments citing CIT v. Cebon India Ltd.

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Dipakkumar S. Mehta, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in (ITA No

ITA 1503/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1503/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Dipakkumar S. Mehta, Surat. Prop. Of Seema Impex, 401, 6/1582, Kumbhar Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afapm8151K (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1461/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Deepak S. Mehta, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), C/O. 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Surat. Gujjar Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afapm8151K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Himashu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…ration of the assessee. Since this notice 143(2) forms the basis for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under respective sections. To support this proposition, we rely on the decision of P & H High Court in the case of CIT v/s Cebon India Ltd (2012) 347 ITR 583 wherein it has been categorically held that absence of a statutory notice under section 143(2), cannot be held to be curable u/s 292BB of the Act. 20. To conclude, this is an undisputed position of fact, as far as the present case is concerned, that Assessing Officer failed to issue a notice to the Assessee under section 143(2) of the Act. The A…

Deepak S. Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in (ITA No

ITA 1461/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Himashu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 107/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.106/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Ward-2(3(8), Surat. 6/1862-63, 3Rd Floor, Office S. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Bal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcsps 0173 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.107/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. S. 7/2496, Office No.2, Shastru Chambers, Maznine Floor, Chandulal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpm 7834 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT(DR)

Section 132(4)Section 144

…ration of the assessee. Since this notice 143(2) forms the basis for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under respective sections. To support this proposition, we rely on the decision of P & H High Court in the case of CIT v/s Cebon India Ltd (2012) 347 ITR 583 wherein it has been categorically held that absence of a statutory notice cannot be held to be curable u/s 292BB of the Act. 20. We note that a plain reading of section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall be incumbent to send a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The provisions contained in sub…

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Mukesh Mahavir Prasad Sen, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 106/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT(DR)

Section 132(4)Section 144

…ration of the assessee. Since this notice 143(2) forms the basis for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under respective sections. To support this proposition, we rely on the decision of P & H High Court in the case of CIT v/s Cebon India Ltd (2012) 347 ITR 583 wherein it has been categorically held that absence of a statutory notice cannot be held to be curable u/s 292BB of the Act. 20. We note that a plain reading of section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall be incumbent to send a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The provisions contained in sub…

Today Realty P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4029/DEL/2019 A.Y. : 2011-12 TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD., ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI C-28, G.F., PANCHSHEEL VS. ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: AACCT8999G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CA Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 27.3.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-28), New Delhi. 2. The facts relating…

Today Realty Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4028/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4028/DEL/2019 A.Y. : 2010-11 TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD., ITO, WARD 25(3), C-28, G.F., PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE, VS. NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: AACCT8999G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CA Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 27.3.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-28), New Delhi. 2. The facts relating t…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Prop., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5680/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Circle-I, Gurgaon Prop., M/S. Ashok Kumar Gupta Shuttering Store, 508/2, Near State Bank Of India, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon Pan :Abepg4595M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Circle-I, Gurgaon Prop., M/s. Ashok Kumar Gupta Shuttering Store, 508/2, Near State Bank of India, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon PAN :ABEPG4595M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri C.P. Singh, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri K.C. Singhal, Adv. Date of hearing 26.02.2019 Date of pronouncement 27.03.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 30/08/2012 passed by the Ld. Comm…

Sharifabai Mohd. Yusuf Memon, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5480/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sharifabai Modh. Yusuf Income Tax Officer- Memon 501/502, A1 Vs. 13(1)(4) Khatija Apartments, 366 Mumbai Sane Guruji Marg, Agripada, Mumbai-400011 Pan No. Aanpi8393M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Tralshawala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…the ITAT. However, the appellant has not yet received information on the date of service of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) for the impugned assessment year from the above authority. Also the Ld. counsel relies on the decision in CIT v. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H) and ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The issue here is the service of notice u/s 143(2) as mentioned at para 2 of the assessment order dated 29.12.2008 passed by the AO. As mentioned hereinbefore, the Bench directed the Ld. DR to produce the…

Lalji & Sons, Bankura vs. ACIT, Circle - Bankura, Bankura

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 220/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Sen, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…applies only in the case of improper service wrong service and not to objection not taken by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Section 292BB does not save the defect of non-issue of notice u/s 143(2). He has relied on CIT v. Cebon India Ltd. [2012] 347 ITR 583/184 Taxman 290 (Punj. & Har), wherein, it is held that a concurrent finding had been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal on the question of date of service of notice. The notice was not served within the stipulated time. Mere giving of dispatch no. would not render the finding perverse. In the absence of notice being served, t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dimension Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1105/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…ologies Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, 2013 (1) TM 1678- ITAT Delhi. (x). CIT vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, 345 ITR 29 ITA No. 1105 & C.O. No. 326/Del./2011 3 (xi). CIT vs. M/s. Parikalpana Estate Development (P) Ltd., 2012 (10) TMI 617 (xii). CIT vs. M/s. Ceban India Ltd., 347 ITR 583 (P&H) 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that due notice u/s. 142(1) was issued to the assessee and therefore, there was no need to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the order of Delhi High Court in the case of Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation, 337 ITR 389 (Del). 4. The ld. AR, in his rejoinder, submitted tha…

Dr. Sb Kalidhar, Punjab vs. ITO, Hisar

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1086/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2010-11 Dr. Sb Kalidhar Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Villa 709, Gillco Valley, Sector -14, Hisar Kharar, Sas Nagar, Punjab-140301 (Pan: Abspk1517Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. Sb Kalidhar, Assessee In Person. Respondent By : Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Dr. SB Kalidhar, Assessee in PersonFor Respondent: Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 292B

…xture as no authorized person was present at assessee’s premises – is not a valid service of notice – Assessment framed in pursuance of such notice is not valid – It is immaterial that the assessee appeared in the proceedings.” CIT Vs. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H) 5. We find that concurrent finding has been recorded by the CIT(A) as well the tribunal on the question of date of service of notice. Notice was not served within the stipulated time. Mere giving of dispatch number will not render the said finding to be perverse. In absence of notice being served, the AO had no jurisdiction to make assessme…

Pankaj Dutta, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Durgapur

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

ITA 2206/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2206/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pankaj Dutta..........................................................................................Appellant Prop. Annapurna Construction, M-95A, Yuri Gagarin Path, Bidhannagore, Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Ahdpd1092P] Income Tax Officer...................…………………………………….........Respondent Ward 1(3), Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur - 713216 Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit (Appeals) Durgapur Dated 31.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Additional Ground Of Appeal Which Reads As Follows: “Because That The Ld. Income Tax Officer Was Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Passing Of The Order U/S 147/143(3) Dated 30Th March, 2015 Without Issue Of The Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The It Act, 1961 & As Such His Reassessment Order Is Not Good In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. As This Is A Legal Ground, Challenging The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer. As All The Facts Required To Adjudicate This Grounds

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…fixture as no authorized person was present at assessee’s premises – is not a valid service of notice – Assessment framed in pursuance of such notice is not valid – It is immaterial that the assessee appeared in the proceedings. CIT vs Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H) 6. We find that the concurrent finding has been recorded by the CIT (A) as well the tribunal on the question of date of service of notice. Notice was not served within the stipulated time. Mere giving of dispatch number will not render the said finding to be perverse. In absence of notice being served, the AO had no jurisdiction to make ass…

Sh. Rahul Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Bulandshahr

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3537/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirahul Kumar, Ito, C/O. Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-3, Vs. 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Bulandshahr Meerut Pan:Babpk9884Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. VK Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 292BSection 68Section 69

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rahul Kumar, ITO, C/o. Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-3, Vs. 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Bulandshahr Meerut PAN:BABPK9884Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. VK Goel, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/11/2016 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 13.04.2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee has r…

Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 319/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Dcit, Circle-1, C-4014, Gaur Green City, Vs. Ghaziabad Vaibhav Kahdn, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Accpt8767F) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…following cases:- - CIT & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal (Allahabad High Court) as reported in 345 ITR 29 - CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported in 346 ITR 67 - CIT vs. Cebon India Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court) reported in 347 ITR 583 - CIT vs. Vishnu & Co. P Ltd. (Delhi High Court) reported in 319 ITR 151 - CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) reported in 287 ITR 287 - Madan Singh Kangarot vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur Bench) reported in 145 TTH 262 - Dr. KC Verma vs. ACIT (ITAT, Delhi Bench) reported in 84 ITD 33. - Raj Kumar Chawla vs. ITO (Delhi ITAT Special Bench)…

Dr. Anisur Rahaman, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -55(2), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2001-02 Dr. Anisur Rahaman V/S. Income Tax Officer, 175, Park Street, Ward-55(2), 54/1 Rafi Kolkata-700 017 Ahmed Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Afvpr 3334 N] Kolkata-700 017 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he AO is bound to serve on the assessee a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, which he never did in this case. Similarly, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H), wherein Hon'ble High Court has noted the facts that CIT(A) found that there is no evidence to show that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been served on the assessee before November 30, 1997, i.e. within one year from the date of filing of return of income and therefore, Hon'ble High Court held as under: ITA No. 462/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2001-02…

ITO, Ward-41(2), Kolkata vs. Shri Subrata Saha, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 226/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kr.Pande, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292Section 69

…at the AO is bound to serve on the assessee a notice u/s. 143(2 of the Act, which he never did in this case. Similarly, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case CIT Vs. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H), wherein Hon'ble High Court has noted the facts that CIT(A) found that there is no evidence to show that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been served on the assessee before November 30, 1997, i.e. within one year from the date of filing of return of income and therefore, Hon'ble High Court held as under: "We find that concurrent finding h…

Om Namah Shivay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3881/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3881/Mum/2013 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Om Namah Shivay बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 15(2) (4), Enterprises, Matrumandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Shop No.6, Raj Umang Ii, Patil Estate, Ashokvan, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400068 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aabfo0605 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Love Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 40

…ITR 362 (SC); B) CIT V/s Virendeer Kumar Agarwal in ITA No.2429 of 2009, order dated 7.1.2010, Bombay High Court; C) CIT V/s Ms. Mudra G. Nanawati* (2009) 227 CTR (Bom) 387; D) Mangilal Jain V/s ITO (2009) 315 ITR 105 (Mad); E) CIT V/s Cebon India Ltd (2009) 347 ITR 583 (P&H); F) DCIT V/s Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj) G) CIT V/s Parikalpana Estate Development P Ltd (2012) 79 DTR (all) 246 and H) CIT V/s Pawan Gupta (2008) 304 ITR 177 (Del). 4 I T A N o . 3 8 8 1 / Mu m/ 1 3 5. The ld. AR further submitted that the provisions of section 292BB could not be applied in case of non-servic…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…ure as no authorized person was present at assessee’s premises – is not a valid service of notice – Assessment framed in pursuance of such notice is not valid – It is immaterial that the assessee appeared in the proceedings.” CIT Vs. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H) 5. We find that concurrent finding has been recorded by the CIT(A) as well the tribunal on the question of date of service of notice. Notice was not served within the stipulated time. Mere giving of dispatch number will not render the said finding to be perverse. In absence of notice being served, the AO had no jurisdiction to make assessme…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

Sh. Ravinder Joon, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6852/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 6852/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ravinder Joon, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri Rajender Singh, H.No.46 Ward-1(2), Gali No. B/10, Ashok Vihar, Gurgaon Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajepj1394F Assessee By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…mentioned therein. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the defect of non-issuance of notice is not curable even under the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H) " CIT Vs Mukesh Kumar Agrawal (2012) 345 ITR 29 (All) " CIT Vs Bihari Lal Agrawal (2012) 346 ITR 67 (All) " CIT Vs Dr. Ajay Prakash (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 387 (All) 8. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee had not taken any objection for non-issuance of noti…