CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel

169 ITR 472Reported decision1987#5204 most cited

What is CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel authority for?

A case should not be remanded to give a party a second chance to adduce evidence if they had an opportunity to do so and failed with open eyes. Once a matter has been fairly tried, it should not be reopened except in special circumstances.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel · remand · opportunity to adduce evidence · failure to adduce evidence · second chance · fair trial · special circumstances · Gujarat High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

Issues it is cited on

beneficial ownersection 14areasonable causesection 153atransferprescribedcompanysection 143(3)indiatotal incomesection 14business

Judgments citing CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel

M J Associates, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Palakkad

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

ITA 785/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…jurisdiction. i. Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT ((2001) 251 ITR 541) (Guj.) iⅱ. CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Gui.) Remand not for the benefit as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 169 ITR 472, the relevant portion of the same is extracted as under: M.J. Associates “Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Wakf Board v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1996 Kar.55 at pages 63 & 64 held as under: "Where the party had an opportunity of adducing evidence in the case but with open eyes failed to adduce that eviden…

M J Associates, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Palakkad

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

ITA 784/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…jurisdiction. i. Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT ((2001) 251 ITR 541) (Guj.) iⅱ. CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Gui.) Remand not for the benefit as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 169 ITR 472, the relevant portion of the same is extracted as under: M.J. Associates “Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Wakf Board v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1996 Kar.55 at pages 63 & 64 held as under: "Where the party had an opportunity of adducing evidence in the case but with open eyes failed to adduce that eviden…