CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy

65 ITR 607Supreme Court of India1967#4224 most cited

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

An assessment made on an assessee under a different status than what was specified in the notice is illegal and without jurisdiction. The assessee must be put on notice and invited for objections if the Assessing Officer proposes to assess them under a different status.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v K. Adinarayana Murthy · 65 ITR 607 · SC · assessment illegal without jurisdiction · notice for change in status · natural justice · section 148 · section 142(1)

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

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 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

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 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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…

DCIT, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Mani Square Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 245FSection 292BSection 68Section 69

…ntire actions and being per se itself illegal. 13. Further, let us look into case laws in respect to the effect of issue of invalid notices as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts: In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Adminarayana Murty (K.) (1967) 65 ITR 607(SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that - “The respondent was a Hindu undivided family. Subsequent to the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer had information that the respondent had done some procurement business and earned large profits which had escaped assessment for the assessment year 1949-50. Since for the assessment year 1954-55 the…

DCIT, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Mani Square Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1052/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 245FSection 292BSection 68Section 69

…ntire actions and being per se itself illegal. 13. Further, let us look into case laws in respect to the effect of issue of invalid notices as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts: In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Adminarayana Murty (K.) (1967) 65 ITR 607(SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that - “The respondent was a Hindu undivided family. Subsequent to the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer had information that the respondent had done some procurement business and earned large profits which had escaped assessment for the assessment year 1949-50. Since for the assessment year 1954-55 the…

Smt. Lokamma, Bangalore vs. Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 563/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 133ASection 2(47)

…erefore the assessment if any should have been in the name of HUF and not in the name of individuals. Thus the reopening and reassessment in the name of individuals is bad in law. He has relied upon the following decisions : i. CIT Vs. K. Adinarayana Murthy 65 ITR 607 (SC) ii. P N Sashi Kumar Vs. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker) iii. M R Pattabhiram (HUF) Vs. ACIT in ITA No.262/Bang/2013 dt.21.11.2014. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that apart from JDA the assesses have also executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the developer and therefore the assessee has transferred all the rights as well…

ITO vs. Sri. N.P. Bagwa & Others

In the result, all these appeals and cross objections are allowed

ITA 1012/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 144

…otectively and not to the appellant AOP and consequently, the assessment made on the AOP without a valid notice u/s.148 of the Act or u/s.142[1] of the Act, is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ADINARAYANA MURTHY reported in 65 ITR 607 and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ABDUL SATIAR MOKASHI reported in 174 ITR 368 and consequently, the assessment made requires to be annulled as votd-ab-inttio. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] has erred that the amount received by the appellant either from Mr. Milan Parekh in respect of GOLDE…

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. Addl.DIT

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…tus and assessment is made under a different status, without initiation of proceedings against the Assessee in a status in which assessment is intended to be framed, is bad in law. • CWT v Ribkarai, [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 (Bom) • CWT v Jagdish Puri [1987] 163 ITR 458 (Raj) Page 7 of 27 • 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.…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…is relevant and apposite, but contrivance and stratagem once established should not be accepted.” 31. We may now deal with the judgments relied upon by the respondent. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh versus K. Adinarayana Murty, [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC) was pronounced before the introduction of Section 292-B of the Act. In the said case, notice for assessment under notice Section 34 of the Act was issued to the assessee in status of an individual, as in a previous order it was held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not a Hindu Undivided Family but an individual. However,…