How many judgments cite CIT v. Chetan Gupta?

57 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Chetan Gupta (382 ITR 613), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Chetan Gupta come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 144, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 282.

CIT v. Chetan Gupta

382 ITR 613High Court2016#2041 most cited

What is CIT v. Chetan Gupta authority for?

Reassessment proceedings and subsequent assessment orders are invalid if the notice under Section 148 is not validly served, such as when issued to an incorrect address or when affixture is improper.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chetan Gupta · Chetan Gupta · Section 148 · Section 147 · Section 282 · service of notice · validity of notice · wrong address · improper affixture · defective notice · reassessment proceedings invalid

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 249126 DTR 401

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 282 Section 143(2)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 282(1)section 282 section 148(1)section 147(b)section 153(2)section 66 section 292b section 292bb section 34(1)service of notice income escaping assessment section 21

Judgments citing CIT v. Chetan Gupta

SANDHYA SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. ITO (2)(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 585/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Sandhya Singh Nfac, 121, Rohit Nagar, New Delhi बनाम/ Bawadia Kala, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aycps9215K Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 69A

…requirement. There is a heavy onus on the Department to provide the date on which the impugned notices have been posted or the date and time on which the e- mail was sent from the e-mail ID of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. (CIT v. Chetan Gupta [2016] 382 ITR 613 (Delhi)). Page 27 of 35 Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 18.2. All impugned notices sent by e-mail have been issued from the designated e-mail address of the jurisdictional Assessing Officers, therefore, to allege that the triggering of e-mail by the Income Tax Business Application is separate from the jurisdictional Assessing Of…

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2569/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…hayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 0333) 8. CIT (Central)-I vs. Chetan Gupta ITA No. 1891/Del/2012 dated 15.09.2015; 382 ITR 613 9. CIT vs. Ceban India Ltd. ITA No. 85 of 2009, Jul 7, 2009 8. Referring to aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is submitted that the notice under section 148, in present case was not served on the assessee in the manner as provided in the statute, failing which the proceedings stand vitiated. It was the submission that in absence of valid ser…

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2568/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

ROHIT MANCHAND,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5124/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50cSection 54

…Income escaping assessment Issue of notice for A.Y 2003-04-Service of notice issued U/s.148 at old address of assessee, though return of income filed before issue of notice showed new address, was not valid (In favour of assessee) CIT VS. CHETAN GUPTA (2015) 126 DTR 401 (DEL) Held service of notice Us. 148 on assessee is a jurisdictional requirement and must be mandatorily complied with. 6 Also held the service of notice U/s. 148 on the assessee should be in accordance with Sec. 282 (1) of the Act r/w. Order V Rule 12 CPC and Order III Rule 6 CPC. Further held -onus is on the revenue to show that proper servi…

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 589/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR and Ms. Payal Gupta, SR-DR

Section 147Section 148

…requirement. There is a heavy onus on the Department to provide the date on which the impugned notices have been posted or the date and time on which the e- mail was sent from the e-mail ID of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. (CIT v. Chetan Gupta [2016] 382 ITR 613 (Delhi)). 18.2. All impugned notices sent by e-mail have been issued from the designated e- mail address of the jurisdictional Assessing Officers, therefore, to allege that the triggering of e-mail by the Income Tax Business Application is separate from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is factually incorrect. The process of triggering e-mail…

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 549/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2013-14) 1. M/S. Desu Enterprises, Ongole (A.P.) Pan: Aagfd1940C 2. Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam. Pan: Αιτpg3044K (Appellants) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. (Respondents) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr & Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Desu Enterprises & Shri Thalla Srisailam Goud (“The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.02.2024 & 09.04.2024 For The A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Respondent: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate

Section 147Section 148

…requirement. There is a heavy onus on the Department to provide the date on which the impugned notices have been posted or the date and time on which the e- mail was sent from the e-mail ID of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. (CIT v. Chetan Gupta [2016] 382 ITR 613 (Delhi)). 18.2. All impugned notices sent by e-mail have been issued from the designated e- mail address of the jurisdictional Assessing Officers, therefore, to allege that the triggering of e-mail by the Income Tax Business Application is separate from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is factually incorrect. The process of triggering e-mail…

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

…C) has categorically held that valid service of notice u/s 148 is a sine qua non for reassessment; absence thereof goes to the root of jurisdiction and renders the reassessment proceedings void. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. Chetan Gupta (2015) 382 ITR 613 (Del) and Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj), where it was held that when the notice is not served in accordance with law, the reassessment fails. 5. In the present case, the non-receipt of the notice on email, together with the screenshot of the e-filing portal, conclusively demonstrates that no valid service of noti…

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 504/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…s that notice u/s 148 was served on the\nassessee for A.Y. 2001-02. In the absence of a valid service of notice u/s 148 on the\nassessee the reassessment proceedings for AY2001-02 are bad in law, consequently they\nare quashed. Affirmed by theDelhi High Court 382 ITR 613 (Del.) CIT vs. Hotline\nInternational Pvt. Ltd 296 ITR 333 (Del); Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), followed.\nThe same contention is favoured by many land mark judgment which are as follows;\nHonorable ITAT, Agra Bench in M/s K.P. Cold Storage Vs ITO ITA No. 145/Agra/2018\nhad held that; In the present case AO on basis of information received fr…

COGNIZANCE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 344/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.344/Hyd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year 2013-2014 | M/S. Cognizance | Constructions Private | Limited, Hyderabad. | Pin – 500 075. Telangana. | Pan Aadcc1366M | (Appellant) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ca Srinivas Maddury राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The

For Appellant: CA Srinivas MadduryFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री मधुसूदन सावडिया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.344/Hyd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year 2013-2014 | M/s. Cognizance | Constructions Private | Limited, Hyderabad. | PIN – 500 075. Telangana. | PAN AADCC1366M | (Appellant) VS. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee by: CA Srinivas Maddury राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue by:: Dr. Sa…

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

…r view, this follows upon the presumptions that are raised under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act." 5.4. He has relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Chetan Gupta [2015] 94 CCH 13 (Delhi); [2016] 382 ITR 613 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under (page 622 of 382 ITR): "The court first would like to deal with the question whether notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement. The rel-evant portion of section 148(1) reads as under: 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.-(1) Before making the assessment, re…

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

…view, this follows upon the presumptions that are raised under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act." 5. 4. He has relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Chetan Gupta [2015] 94 CCH 13 (Delhi); [2016] 382 ITR 613 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under (page 622 of 382 ITR): "The court first would like to deal with the question whether notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement. The rel-evant portion of section 148(1) reads as under: 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.-(1) Before making the assessment, reas…

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…e us that notice u/s 148 was served on the assessee for A.Y. 2001-02. In the absence of a valid service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee the reassessment proceedings for AY2001-02 are bad in law, consequently they are quashed. Affirmed by theDelhi High Court 382 ITR 613 (Del.) CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd 296 ITR 333 (Del); Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), followed. 3.6 The ld. AO has not stated that at what address he has sent the notices and on whom the same was served. As the mandatory condition for reopening of the assessment could not have been fulfilled. Proper service of the notice u/s 148 is m…

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 888/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2011-2012) Krishna Kumar Kedia, Sun Flower Garden, 74, Topsia Road South, Tower-2, Flat No. 4H, Kolkata - 700046 [PAN: APMPK5268B] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata - 700031 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : A.K. Tibriwal, FCA Department represented by : Kapil Mandal, Addl. CIT, SR. DR Date of…

ANIL KUMAR MITTAL H.NO. 143, DLF VALLEY PANCHKULA,PANCHKULA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1135/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has since confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under Section 148 dated 30/03/2019 has not been served on the assessee on his address and some other address has been mentioned in the notice which doesn't belong to the assessee. It was submitted that on inspection of the assessment records, it has been noted that the notice has been re

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 282Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1135/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Anil Kumar Mittal बनाम The ITO H.No. 143, DLF Valley Ward6(1), Ludhiana Panchkula, Haryana-134109 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALAPM0481A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of…

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 4651/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shir Mahavir Singh() Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…rver and pointed out that affixure report does not even contain any signature of an independent witness. 14. The Ld. Counsel made reference to various judicial decisions on the issue of validity of notice through affixture as under: 1. CIT Vs. Chetan Gupta [382 ITR 613 (Del.)]; 2. Veena Devi Karnani Vs. ITO [410 ITR 23 (Del.)]; 3. Pr.CIT Vs. M/s Dart Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 10/2022 dated 17.11.2023]; 4. CIT Vs. Kishan Chand [328 ITR 173 (P&H)]; 5. DCIT Vs. M/s Suruchi Foots Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.3536/Del/2017 & CO No.115/2023 dated 22.12.2023, ITAT (Del.)]; 8 I.T.A. No. 4651/Del/2018 & CO No.74/Del/2023…

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) S.A. No.55/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 1985/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aptivaa Middle East FZE, Deputy Commissioner of Income C/o Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Tax (IT)-Circle-1(1)(2), Room No. 2009, 20th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 91 Springboard, 74 Techno Park, 74/II, Cross Road C, Opp. Gate Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point, No.2, M.I.D.C, Seepz, Andheri East, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400093. PAN: AAWCA5297L Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee…

AMARDEEP,JHAJJAR vs. ITO,WARD-1, ROHTAK

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1213/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

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

…ished a screenshot of the ITD qua issue of the notice u/s 148 to show that there was no mention of its Jhajjar address. The Ld. Council placed reliance inter alia upon a catena of the judgements including Dart Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. 460 ITR 532& Chetan Gupta 382 ITR 613 (Delhi high court) as well as Rajiv Gupta ITR No. 1166/del/2024 of this tribunal, holding that assessment orders based on notices issued on wrong address cannot survive. The Ld. Council submitted that in view of these facts the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority is not based upon correct and understanding to appreciation of the ITA No.- 1…

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3