CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy

65 ITR 607Supreme Court of India1967#4285 most cited

What is CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy authority for?

A notice under Section 34 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, issued to an assessee in the status of an 'individual' when their correct status is 'Hindu undivided family' is illegal, ultra vires, and without jurisdiction, rendering subsequent proceedings void.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy · section 34 · notice · individual status · Hindu undivided family status · illegal notice · ultra vires · without jurisdiction · separate units of assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 234BSection 32

Issues it is cited on

warrant of authorisationsection 2(31)section 53aprincipal officersection 292bbassistant directorsurvey under section 133asection 34section 292bsection 292csection 2(15)section 127

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy

SHRI KISHAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3030/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

…vantage of to start proceedings under s. 148 against the Hindu Joint family.” 4. In the case of Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Ramdas Devakinandan Prasad (2005) 277 ITR 195. held as under :- “The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K. Adinarayan Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607 has considered a parallel controversy and has observed as follows : “Under the scheme of the Income-tax Act the ‘individual’ and the ‘Hindu’ undivided family’ are treated as separate units of assessment and if a notice under section 34 of the Act is wrongly issued to the assessee in the status of an ‘individual’ and not in the correct status of ‘H…

MANOJ KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3029/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

…vantage of to start proceedings under s. 148 against the Hindu Joint family.” 4. In the case of Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Ramdas Devakinandan Prasad (2005) 277 ITR 195. held as under :- “The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K. Adinarayan Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607 has considered a parallel controversy and has observed as follows : “Under the scheme of the Income-tax Act the ‘individual’ and the ‘Hindu’ undivided family’ are treated as separate units of assessment and if a notice under section 34 of the Act is wrongly issued to the assessee in the status of an ‘individual’ and not in the correct status of ‘H…

SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, , REWA

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

ITA 37/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

…Jabalpur. not in the individual capacity and the provisions under section 292 B of the Act cannot be made applicable by the revenue. 14. We also consider the ratio of decision of the Honble Supreme court in the case of the CIT Vs. K. Adinarayana Murty (1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC) held as under: "under the scheme of the Income-tax Act the "Individual" and the 'Hindu undivided family' are treated as separate units of assessment and if a notice under s. 34 of the Act is wrongly issued to the assessee in the status of an 'individual' and not in the correct status of 'Hindu undivided family', the notice is illegal and ult…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 509/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

…d the status under the facts and circumstances of the case and an assessment on a wrong status is fatal which will entail the assessment order to be quashed. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adinaryana Murthy 65 ITR 607; Karnataka high court in the case of Abdul sattar Mokashi 174 ITR 370; The Andhra Pradesh high court in Gutta Anjaneylu and Co., 347 ITR 135. 18. It is seen from the facts that the AO has merely adopted the income assessed in the original assessments concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act and has not made any fresh additions during the impugned assessmen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 508/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

…d the status under the facts and circumstances of the case and an assessment on a wrong status is fatal which will entail the assessment order to be quashed. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adinaryana Murthy 65 ITR 607; Karnataka high court in the case of Abdul sattar Mokashi 174 ITR 370; The Andhra Pradesh high court in Gutta Anjaneylu and Co., 347 ITR 135. 18. It is seen from the facts that the AO has merely adopted the income assessed in the original assessments concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act and has not made any fresh additions during the impugned assessmen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 501/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

…d the status under the facts and circumstances of the case and an assessment on a wrong status is fatal which will entail the assessment order to be quashed. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adinaryana Murthy 65 ITR 607; Karnataka high court in the case of Abdul sattar Mokashi 174 ITR 370; The Andhra Pradesh high court in Gutta Anjaneylu and Co., 347 ITR 135. 18. It is seen from the facts that the AO has merely adopted the income assessed in the original assessments concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act and has not made any fresh additions during the impugned assessmen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 500/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

…d the status under the facts and circumstances of the case and an assessment on a wrong status is fatal which will entail the assessment order to be quashed. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adinaryana Murthy 65 ITR 607; Karnataka high court in the case of Abdul sattar Mokashi 174 ITR 370; The Andhra Pradesh high court in Gutta Anjaneylu and Co., 347 ITR 135. 18. It is seen from the facts that the AO has merely adopted the income assessed in the original assessments concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act and has not made any fresh additions during the impugned assessmen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 499/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

…d the status under the facts and circumstances of the case and an assessment on a wrong status is fatal which will entail the assessment order to be quashed. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adinaryana Murthy 65 ITR 607; Karnataka high court in the case of Abdul sattar Mokashi 174 ITR 370; The Andhra Pradesh high court in Gutta Anjaneylu and Co., 347 ITR 135. 18. It is seen from the facts that the AO has merely adopted the income assessed in the original assessments concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act and has not made any fresh additions during the impugned assessmen…

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3)

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/832/2018HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

…come from immovable properties, Section 9(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 will apply. So -35- far as other incomes were concerned, it was held: …………” 17. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. K.Adinarayana Murty [(1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “The question presented for determination in this appeal is whether it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to issue the second notice dated February 12, 1958 and continue proceedings thereon ignoring the return already filed by the assessee in pursuance of the first notice under the same…

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/833/2018HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

…come from immovable properties, Section 9(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 will apply. So -35- far as other incomes were concerned, it was held: …………” 17. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. K.Adinarayana Murty [(1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “The question presented for determination in this appeal is whether it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to issue the second notice dated February 12, 1958 and continue proceedings thereon ignoring the return already filed by the assessee in pursuance of the first notice under the same…

M/S SRI VARUN SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/295/2019HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

…come from immovable properties, Section 9(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 will apply. So -35- far as other incomes were concerned, it was held: …………” 17. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. K.Adinarayana Murty [(1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “The question presented for determination in this appeal is whether it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to issue the second notice dated February 12, 1958 and continue proceedings thereon ignoring the return already filed by the assessee in pursuance of the first notice under the same…

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/869/2018HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

…come from immovable properties, Section 9(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 will apply. So -35- far as other incomes were concerned, it was held: …………” 17. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. K.Adinarayana Murty [(1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “The question presented for determination in this appeal is whether it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to issue the second notice dated February 12, 1958 and continue proceedings thereon ignoring the return already filed by the assessee in pursuance of the first notice under the same…

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/330/2019HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

…come from immovable properties, Section 9(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 will apply. So -35- far as other incomes were concerned, it was held: …………” 17. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. K.Adinarayana Murty [(1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “The question presented for determination in this appeal is whether it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to issue the second notice dated February 12, 1958 and continue proceedings thereon ignoring the return already filed by the assessee in pursuance of the first notice under the same…

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

ITA 806/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…1860 is an 'Artificial Juridical Person' and not 'Association of Persons'. 1.4. In the following cases, it has been held that assessment made under a different status is bad in law.  CWT v Ridhkaran [1972] 84 ITR 705 (Raj)  CIT v Adinarayana Murthy K [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC)  CIT v Associated Cement and Steel Agencies [1984] 147 ITR 776 (Boni)  CWT v Jagdish Puri [1987] 163 ITR 458 (Raj)  CIT v Sobhagmal Mishrilal Semlavada [1997] 223 ITR 554 (MP)  CWT v Srivastava (J.K.) and Sons [1983] 142 ITR 183 (All )  CIT v Suresh Chandra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj)  Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 2…

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

ITA 394/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…1860 is an 'Artificial Juridical Person' and not 'Association of Persons'. 1.4. In the following cases, it has been held that assessment made under a different status is bad in law.  CWT v Ridhkaran [1972] 84 ITR 705 (Raj)  CIT v Adinarayana Murthy K [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC)  CIT v Associated Cement and Steel Agencies [1984] 147 ITR 776 (Boni)  CWT v Jagdish Puri [1987] 163 ITR 458 (Raj)  CIT v Sobhagmal Mishrilal Semlavada [1997] 223 ITR 554 (MP)  CWT v Srivastava (J.K.) and Sons [1983] 142 ITR 183 (All )  CIT v Suresh Chandra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj)  Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 2…

NARENDRA KUMAR GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

ITA 1532/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 292BSection 50CSection 55(2)(b)Section 55A

…d of assessment year 1948-49. 14.1 The issue in the instant case is different. Whereas in the instant case, the assessment was rightly reopened and rightly completed in the hands of the assessee for the correct year. 15. CIT Vs. K. Adinarayana Murty (1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC) held that under the scheme of the Income-tax Act the “Individual” and the 'Hindu undivided family' are treated as separate units of assessment and if a notice under s. 34 of the Act is wrongly issued to the assessee in the status of an 'individual' and not in the correct status of 'Hindu undivided family', the notice is illegal and ultra-…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…fficer wishes to assess the Assessee under a different status, then the Assessee is required to be put on notice about the proposal of the Assessing Officer and invite for objections, if any. [iv]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy [1967] 65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also place…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…fficer wishes to assess the Assessee under a different status, then the Assessee is required to be put on notice about the proposal of the Assessing Officer and invite for objections, if any. [iv]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy [1967] 65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also place…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…fficer wishes to assess the Assessee under a different status, then the Assessee is required to be put on notice about the proposal of the Assessing Officer and invite for objections, if any. [iv]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy [1967] 65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also place…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…fficer wishes to assess the Assessee under a different status, then the Assessee is required to be put on notice about the proposal of the Assessing Officer and invite for objections, if any. [iv]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy [1967] 65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also place…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2