CIT v. Eshaan

344 ITR 541High Court2012#9703 most cited

What is CIT v. Eshaan authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if a valid notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has not been served on the assessee. Service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Eshaan · 344 ITR 541 · Section 148 notice · service of notice · reassessment without notice · jurisdictional requirement · invalid assessment · Income Tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 292section 29tangible materialreason to believeservice of noticenotice under section 148section 139section 142(1)section 148section 147section 144section 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Eshaan

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

…no 148 notice was ever recd./in the knowledge of the assessee, hence there was no question for filing any ITR in response to 148 notice. (115) CASE LAWS Absence Of Service Of Notice U/s.148 Makes Asstt. Without Jurisdiction CIT VS. ESHAAN HOLDING PVT. LTD. 344 ITR 541-(DHC) Sec. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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…

ITO Ward-32(2), New Delhi vs. Mahavir Singh Dagar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2756/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: None
Section 147Section 148

…ue: i. Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs. Union Of India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 513 of 2019 (Bob. HC), order dated 16.07.2019 ii. PCIT Vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 665-666/2015, order dated 21.09.2015 (Del. HC) iii. CIT Vs. Eshaan Holding (P.) Ltd. (344 ITR 541) (Del.) iv. CIT Vs. M/s Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (4) TMI 44 (Del.) v. Mrs. Shubhashri Panicker Vs. CIT 2018 (6) TMI 98 (Raj.) vi. PCIT Vs. M/s Mahla Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (12) TMI 142 (Raj.) vii. Rambhai Mafatlal Patel Vs. ITO (2021) (3) TMI 1173(Guj.) viii. Naveen Tyagi Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2089/DEL/2018, order dated 20.06.2022 11…

Smt. Pushpa Chhajer, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…ced on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RK Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel (166 ITR 163). Further placed reliance on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Chetan Gupta (2016) 382 ITR, Delhi High Court ii. CIT vs. Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd. 344 ITR 541, Delhi High Court iii. ITO vs. Hepta Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 3608 of 2014 (ITAT Delhi) Date of order 08.07.2015 iv. CIT vs. Avtar Singh (P&H) (HC), 219 CTR 588 v. CIT vs. Eqbal Singh Sindhana 304 ITR 177 (Delhi) vi. ACIT vs. Vindhya Talylinks Ltd. 107 TTJ 149 (JAB)(TM) CIT vs. Hotline International (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del) vii. CIT vs. L…

Naveen Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 2089/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2089/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Naveen Tyagi Ito C/O M/S Sanjeev Anand & Vs. Ward 1(2), Associates, 77, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Admpt7873K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…on of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RK Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel (166 ITR 163). 6. The Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the following decisions: • CIT vs. Chetan Gupta (2016) 382 ITR, Delhi High Court • CIT vs. Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd. 344 ITR 541, Delhi High Court • ITO vs. Hepta Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 3608 of 2014 (ITAT Delhi) Date of order 08.07.2015 • CIT vs. Avtar Singh (P&H) (HC), 219 CTR 588 • CIT vs. Eqbal Singh Sindhana 304 ITR 177 (Delhi) • ACIT vs. Vindhya Talylinks Ltd. 107 TTJ 149 (JAB)(TM) • CIT vs. Hotline International (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del) I.T.A.No.2089/Del/201…

Indian Clothing League(P) Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 505/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Indian Clothing League (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-26(2), Advocate, B-1A/22H, New Delhi. Sector-51, Noida. Pan: Aaccv3439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…405 ITR 422 (Chattisgarh); ii) Pr. CIT v. Atlanta Capital (P) Ltd. 119 Taxmann.com 292 (Del), affirmed by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Atlantal Capital (P) Ltd. reported in 274 Taxman 224 (SC); and iii) CIT v. Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd. 344 ITR 541 (Del) 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted that since no notice u/s 143(2) was issued, the entire assessment proceedings become a nullity. 10. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(…

Mas Metals & Components Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Noida

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

ITA 4263/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Mas Metals & Components Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, A-4, South Extension Part I, Ward-2(2), New Delhi. Noida. Pan: Aadcm6451F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arun Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 139A(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 282Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 MAS Metals & Components Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, A-4, South Extension Part I, Ward-2(2), New Delhi. Noida. PAN: AADCM6451F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Arun Kumar Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 21.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2019 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th June, 2017 of the CIT(A)-1, Noida, relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:-…

Prashanti Investment (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. And Shri Sumit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…or determination by the Court. 14. The appeals are dismissed.” 11 ITA.No.391/Del./2018 M/s. Prashanti Investment (P) Ltd., New Delhi. 5.1. He has also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd., (2012) 344 ITR 541 (Del.) in which it was held that “notice sent to old address and service by affixture at old address is not proper. Consequential assessment is not valid”. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Gupta (2015) 126 DTR 401 (Del.) in which it was held that “under sectio…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meerut Credit & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 609/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Jain, CA & Sh. MukulFor Respondent: Ms. Rashmita, Sr. DR
Section 139ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…d that the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. – 281 ITR 1, CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd., CIT (Central)-1 vs. Chetan Gupta ITA No. 1891/Del/2012 dated 15.9.2015, and CIT vs. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. (2012) 344 ITR 541 (Del.) are applicable to the facts of the case for the principle that before issue the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, it is expected of the AO to have checked up if there is any change of address because valid service of notice of reopening the assessment is a jurisdictional matter and this is a condition precedent for a valid reassessment. Further,…

R.V. Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Punjab vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2909/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. S.K.Yadav & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…27), Hence the Notice issued on old address and even by affixture was also not valid sen/ice as it was done on old address though new returns filed at new address is illegal void ab intio as was held in the case of CIT v. Eshaan Holdings (p) Ltd. (DEL) (2012) 344 ITR 541. 5. (PB-24) is the copy of evidence submitted by AO for the service of Notice by speed post at three addresses on the same day which is 07.04.201 1 (PB-25-26-27) are the copies of the notices issued u/s 148 on three different addresses of Delhi dated 25.03.201 1 for the AY 2004-05. The Date of issue of Notice is the date on which it was handed ov…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3974/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2005-06 Ito, Ward 12(2), Vs. M/S Goel Sons Golden New Delhi Estate Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 3, 1St Floor, Csc, Kd-Block, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034 (Pan: Aaccg1922A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. SL Deepak, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-3”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. : 2005-06 ITO, WARD 12(2), VS. M/S GOEL SONS GOLDEN NEW DELHI ESTATE PVT. LTD., OFFICE NO. 3, 1ST FLOOR, CSC, KD-BLOCK, PITAMPURA, DELHI – 110 034 (PAN: AACCG1922A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : None Assessee by : Sh. SL Deepak, CA Date of Hearing : 20-06-2016 Date of Order : 01-07-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Revenue has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2005-06 on th…

M.G. Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 6342/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M & L.P. Sahu,Am Asstt. Year: 2000-01 M.G. Capital Services Ltd. Vs Dcit Raj Kumar & Associates, Ca Circle-6(1) 4435/7, Ansari Road, Darya New Delhi Gang New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaacm6670R

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CA, Sh. Sumit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…-Tribunal) (SB) which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated 06.10.2010 in WP No. 1159 & 1161/2010. 6 Placing reliance on the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi including decision in the case of CIT Vs Eshaan Holdings (P) Ltd. 344 ITR 541 (Delhi) the Ld AR strenuously contented that when the return has been submitted giving new address then the notice of reassessment U/s 148 of the Act sent to the old address and the same was serviced by affixture at the old address then there is no valid or proper service of notice and all proceedings subsequent thereto deserve to be quashed. The…

CIT v. Eshaan (344 ITR 541) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax