CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co.

370 ITR 87High Court2015#1672 most cited

What is CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. authority for?

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory, and its non-service or invalidity is not a curable procedural irregularity, rendering subsequent assessment proceedings void. Objections regarding non-service of notice, being a jurisdictional issue, can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. · Section 143(2) notice · mandatory notice · non-service of notice · assessment void ab initio · procedural irregularity · non est assessment order · objection before Tribunal · Section 263 revision · Section 147 · Section 148

Also reported as

53 Taxmann.com 108231 Taxmann 506

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 151Section 143(2)Section 263Section 127(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 120(1)section 2(7a)section 120section 292bbsection 148(2)section 124section 292bassistant directorservice of noticeincome escaping assessmentmere change of opinionsection 148a(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

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

…irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [2015] 53 taxmann.com 108/231 Taxman 506/370 ITR 87 (Mad.), wherein it was held that the word 'shall' employed in section 143(2) of the Act, contemplates that the assessing officer should issue notice to the assessee so as to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing…

Balmukund M Vaishnav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [2015] 53 taxmann.com 108/231 Taxman 506/370 ITR 87 (Mad.), wherein it was held that the word 'shall' employed in section 143(2) of the Act, contemplates that the assessing officer should issue notice to the assessee so as to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing…

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the righ…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239], (Hon’ble Kerala High Court) 3. CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87] (Hon’ble Madras High Court) 4. CIT Vs. M/s Panorama Builders Pvt. Ltd. In tax appeal No. 435 of 2011, (Gujrat High Court) 5. CIT vs. Sukhini P. Modi reported at (2014) 367 ITR 682 (Hon'ble Gujarat High court), 6. CIT vs. K M Ravji in Tax Appeal No. 771 of 2010 order dated 18.07.2011 (Gujarat High Court) 7. CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, (High…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239], (Hon’ble Kerala High Court) 3. CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87] (Hon’ble Madras High Court) 4. CIT Vs. M/s Panorama Builders Pvt. Ltd. In tax appeal No. 435 of 2011, (Gujrat High Court) 5. CIT vs. Sukhini P. Modi reported at (2014) 367 ITR 682 (Hon'ble Gujarat High court), 6. CIT vs. K M Ravji in Tax Appeal No. 771 of 2010 order dated 18.07.2011 (Gujarat High Court) 7. CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, (High…

Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 55/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri P. K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the righ…

Jaya Bothra, Purba Barddhaman vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 1632/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील संख्या: 1632/कोल/2019 धनिाारण वषाः 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [2015] 53 taxmann.com 108/231 Taxman 506/370 ITR 87 (Mad.), wherein it was held that the word 'shall' employed in section 143(2) of the Act, contemplates that the assessing officer should issue notice to the assessee so as to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing…

M/S. Shree Shoppers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [2015] 53 taxmann.com 108/231 Taxman 506/370 ITR 87 (Mad.), wherein it was held that the word 'shall' employed in section 143(2) of the Act, contemplates that the assessing officer should issue notice to the assessee so as to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing…

K.Balasubramanian, Chennai vs. ITO, Pondicherry

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

ITA 1694/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1694/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 Shri K. Balasubramanian, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: M/S. Bharathi Khadi Vastralaya, Vs. Ward I(3), Pondicherry. No. 81, J.N. Street, Pondicherry 605 001. [Pan:Aafpb8691P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Puducherry, Chennai, Dated 15.04.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Are, In Brief That The Assessee Is An Individual Running A Proprietary Concern By Name M/S. Bharathi Khadi Vastralaya, A Retail Concern Trading In Textiles, Readymades, Agarbathies, Etc. At Pondicherry. There Was A Survey Under Section 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…as no application for the assessment year 4 I.T.A. No.1694/Chny/16 2007-08 and it only applies from the assessment year 2008-09. He also submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [2015] 370 ITR 87 (Mad), it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to serve the notice under section 143(2) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the authorities below and submitted that section 292BB of the Act squarely applies and once the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and cooperated with the As…

M/S Golden Vincom Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 143/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…uance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Git sons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the righ…

Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 697/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 697/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works The Acit, Ltd., V. Company Circle – Iv(2), (Amalgamated Company Of Lmw Coimbatore. Machinery Ltd W.E.F. 01.04.2012), S.R.K.V. Post, Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore – 641 020. Pan : Aaacl5244N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Company Circle Iv(2), Coimbatore Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuance Of Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai In F.No.Drp/Che/05/2013, Directions Dated 28.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 16.01.2014. I.T.A. No.697/Chny/2014 2 2. At The Outset, Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised Vide Letter Dated 25.01.2016. He Referred The Following Additional Grounds:- (I) The Impugned Order, U/S.143 R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.01.2014 On The Dissolved Company M/S. Rieter Lmw Machinery Limited, Is Opposed To Law & Ab Initio Void. (Ii) The Learned Drp, Ought To Have Quashed The Draft Order Of The Tpo, As The Company Stood Dissolved With Effect From 01.04.2012, As Per The Order Of The Hon’Ble High Court Of Madras Dated 26Th Day Of April 2013, A Copy Of Which Position Was Brought To The Notice Of The Drp, In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(11)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 697/CHNY/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works The ACIT, Ltd., v. Company Circle – IV(2), (amalgamated company of LMW Coimbatore. Machinery Ltd w.e.f. 01.04.2012), S.R.K.V. Post, Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore – 641 020. PAN : AAACL5244N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : S…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Nopany & Sons

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the

ITAT/58/2017HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. Tilak Mitra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv
Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 260A

…ty and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gitsons Engineering Company, reported in [2015] 370 ITR 87, wherein it was held that the word ‘shall’ employed in Section 143(2) of the Act, contemplates that the assessing officer should issue notice to the assessee so as to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing office…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 2 (3), Bengaluru vs. Shri C J Vishwantha, Chickamangaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1891/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…ed within 6 months from the end of financial year 31/3/2014 i.e on or before 30/9/2014. Since notice u/s 143(2) was served on 3/11/2014, obviously barred by limitation of time. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. Ltd., 370 ITR 87 (Mad), where it has been held that the service of notice within the prescribed time is mandatory. Being so, the CIT(A) is justified in quashing the asst. by holding that ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 30 of 30 issue of notice us/ 143(2) is beyond time. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The same is confirmed. A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanth, Chikkamangaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1893/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…ed within 6 months from the end of financial year 31/3/2014 i.e on or before 30/9/2014. Since notice u/s 143(2) was served on 3/11/2014, obviously barred by limitation of time. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. Ltd., 370 ITR 87 (Mad), where it has been held that the service of notice within the prescribed time is mandatory. Being so, the CIT(A) is justified in quashing the asst. by holding that ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 30 of 30 issue of notice us/ 143(2) is beyond time. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The same is confirmed. A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanth, Chickamangalur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1892/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…ed within 6 months from the end of financial year 31/3/2014 i.e on or before 30/9/2014. Since notice u/s 143(2) was served on 3/11/2014, obviously barred by limitation of time. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. Ltd., 370 ITR 87 (Mad), where it has been held that the service of notice within the prescribed time is mandatory. Being so, the CIT(A) is justified in quashing the asst. by holding that ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 30 of 30 issue of notice us/ 143(2) is beyond time. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The same is confirmed. A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanath, Chikkamagaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1896/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…ed within 6 months from the end of financial year 31/3/2014 i.e on or before 30/9/2014. Since notice u/s 143(2) was served on 3/11/2014, obviously barred by limitation of time. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. Ltd., 370 ITR 87 (Mad), where it has been held that the service of notice within the prescribed time is mandatory. Being so, the CIT(A) is justified in quashing the asst. by holding that ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 30 of 30 issue of notice us/ 143(2) is beyond time. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The same is confirmed. A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanth, Chikkamagaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1895/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…ed within 6 months from the end of financial year 31/3/2014 i.e on or before 30/9/2014. Since notice u/s 143(2) was served on 3/11/2014, obviously barred by limitation of time. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. Ltd., 370 ITR 87 (Mad), where it has been held that the service of notice within the prescribed time is mandatory. Being so, the CIT(A) is justified in quashing the asst. by holding that ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 30 of 30 issue of notice us/ 143(2) is beyond time. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The same is confirmed. A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanth, Chikkamagaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1894/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…ed within 6 months from the end of financial year 31/3/2014 i.e on or before 30/9/2014. Since notice u/s 143(2) was served on 3/11/2014, obviously barred by limitation of time. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. Ltd., 370 ITR 87 (Mad), where it has been held that the service of notice within the prescribed time is mandatory. Being so, the CIT(A) is justified in quashing the asst. by holding that ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 30 of 30 issue of notice us/ 143(2) is beyond time. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The same is confirmed. A…

Concord Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 174/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

…as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said 8 Concord Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the rig…

Mikado Realtors (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri LalitFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.50/DEL/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mikado Realtors P. Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT(Central) Office No., 1121-A, Devika Gurugram. Tower, 12th Floor, 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAECM7429E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 18 03 2021 Date of pronouncement: 20 04 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee…