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.

Sri Krishnendu Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1153/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2010-11 Sri Krishnendu Chowdhury, Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/o Mahadev Ghosh, Ward-1, Basudebpur, / V/s. Advocate, BF-199, Slt Lake P.O. Khanjanchar, Purba City, Kolkata-64 Medinipur-721602 [PAN No. ABYPC 8992 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Mahadeb Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-11-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 18-11-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of P…

Sadhana M. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6072/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6072/Mum/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Mrs. Sadhana M. Shah Ito 16(2)(2) बनाम/ 22, Meera Flats, 4Th Floor, Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, Vs. L.D.Ruparel Marg, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavps7994L

For Appellant: Shri Snehal J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Mangal
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ “ई‘’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6072/Mum/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Mrs. Sadhana M. Shah ITO 16(2)(2) बनाम/ 22, Meera Flats, 4th Floor, Room No.214, 2nd Floor, Vs. L.D.Ruparel Marg, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAVPS7994L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Snehal J. Shah Department by: Shri Kamal Mangal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing: 28.04.2016 घ…

Valiant Glass Works P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1612/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargvaliant Glass Works Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O. Shankarlal Jain & Income Tax, Associates, 12, Engineer Central Circle-38, Mumbai Building, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai 400 002 Pan:Aaacv 1224 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. M. Doss, (CIT& DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 28Section 80

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the some 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 some 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…

ITO, Ward - 56(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Nopany & Sons, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1621/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…e to be produced any evidence on which the assessee desire to rely in support of his return. The above view gets fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO. reported in [2015] 370 ITR 87, wherein it is held that, "the word "shall" employed in section 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, 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 is, therefore, clear that whe…

M/S. Nopany & Sons, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 56(4), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…e to be produced any evidence on which the assessee desire to rely in support of his return. The above view gets fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO. reported in [2015] 370 ITR 87, wherein it is held that, "the word "shall" employed in section 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, 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 is, therefore, clear that whe…

DCIT vs. M/S Asha Business Centre Ltd

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 1577/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ing decisions:- i) CIT v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (All) ii) ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [2015] 379 ITR 14 (All) iii) Principal CIT v. Silver Line (2016) 129 DTR 191 (Del) iv) CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Company [2015] 370 ITR 87 ITA Nos.1577 & 1400/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 6 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala relied on the decisions in the case of Aravali Engineers P. Ltd. Vs CIT, (2011) 11 TAxmann.com 291 and K.J. Thomas, 301 ITR 301. 9. We have heard both the parties. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co., 370…

M/S Asha Business Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 1400/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ing decisions:- i) CIT v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (All) ii) ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [2015] 379 ITR 14 (All) iii) Principal CIT v. Silver Line (2016) 129 DTR 191 (Del) iv) CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Company [2015] 370 ITR 87 ITA Nos.1577 & 1400/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 6 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala relied on the decisions in the case of Aravali Engineers P. Ltd. Vs CIT, (2011) 11 TAxmann.com 291 and K.J. Thomas, 301 ITR 301. 9. We have heard both the parties. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co., 370…

Krishan Kumar Saraf, Bhiwani vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4562/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :Asstt. Yr: 2007-08 Krishan Kumar Saraf, Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, S/0 Sh. Brij Lal Saraf, Hissar. Bichla Bazar, Near City Police Stationj, Bhiwani. Pan: Amqps 3147J ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri N.K. Jain Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Sulekha Verma Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2015. Date Of Order : 24/09/2015. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Jain AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

…ence not amenable to revision u/s 263. Therefore, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the said notice was without jurisdiction. 7. Ld. counsel referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. (2015) 370 ITR 87 (Mad.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 iTR 362 (SC) has held that the objection in relation to wrong service of notice contemplated u/s 143(2) of the Act could be taken before the ITAT as it was a legal plea. 8. Ld. counsel further referred to the decisio…