How many judgments cite CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (82 ITR 821), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 144, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3).

CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala

82 ITR 821Supreme Court of India1971#3650 most cited

What is CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala authority for?

The jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer to reopen assessment proceedings under Section 147 is contingent upon the issuance of a valid notice under Section 148. If the Section 148 notice is invalid for any reason, all subsequent proceedings become void due to lack of jurisdiction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala · Section 147 · Section 148 · validity of notice · reassessment proceedings · void ab initio · lack of jurisdiction · valid service of notice

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BB Section 127(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 163 section 2(7a)section 147(a)section 34(1)section 292bb section 124 section 120 section 31 section 292b section 21 section 34 section 16

Judgments citing CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RISHABH AVNISH MODY, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8101/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56Section 68

…is manifest that the assessment proceedings under section 3(1) of the Act for the aforesaid three years are invalid." The matter has been put beyond any doubt by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income- tax v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 , wherein it is observed: "It is well settled that the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 34 (it is equivalent to section 147) depends upon the issuance of a valid notice (now section 148). If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason the entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of ju…

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2569/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…36 ITR 90 (All. HC) 3. CIT Vs. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. reported in (2017) 390 ITR 381 4. Y. Narayan Chetty vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC); 5. CIT vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 0333) 8. CIT (Central)-I vs. Chetan Gupta ITA No. 1891/Del/2012 dated 15.09.2015; 382 ITR 613 9. CIT vs. Ceban India Ltd. ITA No. 85 of 2009, Jul 7, 2009 8. Referring to aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is submitted that the notice under section 148, in present case was not served on t…

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2568/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

KALYAN RATAN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

ITA 571/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

…na Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC);\nb) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC);\nc) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC).\nd) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC)\ne) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)\nf) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del)511\n\ng) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta (2008) 16 DTR (Del) (Trib)\nh) Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) 517\ni) GkBusinessCentre(P)Ltd. Vs ITO Ward-10(4),I.T.A. No.828/DEL/2020.\n(j)BalluSingh Vs. ITO, Ward-65(5), New Delhi ITA No.799 &800/Del/2020\n\nHence, t…

MARIA ESTIBEIRO,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 34/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)

…ught to have been issued a fresh u/s 159(2)(b) to the legal representatives and such notice drawn in the name of deceased cannot be saved by recourse to Section 292B. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in ‘CIT Vs Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala’ [1971, 82 ITR 821 (SC)], the Hon’ble High Court remarked that the position of law on validity of notice and pursuant proceedings is well- settled that the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen proceedings for assessment u/s 147 of the Act ITAT-Panaji Page 20 of 28 Maria Estibeiro L/H of Jacintodas Estibeiro Vs DCIT, Panaji Goa ITA No.034/PAN/2024 AY:2012-13…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)(1), MUMBAI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MUMBAI vs. ESSAR POWER JAMNAGAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2463/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Essar Power Jamnagar Ltd., Ward 6(2)(1), 11, Essar House, K.K. Marg, Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 (Pan : Aabce8921G) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062839468(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(2)(4), U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Citia) Was Justified In Declaring The Assessment Order Passed As Nullity Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Was In Existence When The Transactions Were Made? 2. "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Citia) Was Justified In Treating The Assessment Proceedings As Without Jurisdiction, Without Considering The Fact That The Reference Can Be Made For Revival Of Companies From The Date Of Strike Off, As Per The Instruction By The Cbdt Vide Letter Dated 29.12.2017?

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT, DR

Section 144Section 148Section 560

…Delhi High Court 2. CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1960] 40 ITR 38 (Mad.) 3. K. Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CWT [2012] 347 ITR 664/20 taxmann.com 731 (Cal.) 4. CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 (SC) 5. CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC). 6. CIT v. Vived Marketing Servicing (P.) Ltd. ITA No. 273/2009 order dated 17.09.2009 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court 7. Khurana Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (OSD) [2014] 364 ITR 600/[2013] 217 Taxman 75 (Mag.)/34 taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) 8. Torrent (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (SCA No. 5857 of 2004, judgment dated 29.04.2013 of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 4 Essar…

LATE LODAYA NAVALBAI RAICHAND BY LEGAL HEIR SHRI. SHARAD R LODAYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

ITA 39/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…not receive it. The plain language of Section 292BB, precludes its application and is contrary to the argument of Ld. DR. We also refer to the decision of Hon'ble Page 11 of 12 Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji reported in (1971) 82 ITR 821. The facts of the case was that, after completion of assessment for the assessment year 1949-50, the ITO issued two notices under section 22(2) and under section 34. While the notice under section 34 referred to the assessment year 1948-49, the notice under section 22(2) of the 1922 Act referred to the assessment year 1949-50. The assessee pointed…

SMT. VARSHABEN PARAS JANI(L.H. OF SHRI PARAS CHUNILAL JANI),AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 536/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 536/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…Absence of such a notice would make the assessment invalid and without jurisdiction in view of the decisions of Y Narayana Chetty v. ITO, 35 ITR 388 (SC); CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi , 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 82 ITR 821 (SC); Nayalchand Malukchand Dagli v. CIT, 62 ITR 102 (Guj); Madanlal Agarwal v. CIT, 144 ITR 745 (All); PN Sasikumar v. CIT, 170 ITR 80 (Ker); and Electro Steel Castings Ltd. 264 ITR 410 (Cal)-SLP Dismissed 266 ITR (St.) 104 (SC). The existence of a valid section 148 notice being a condition precedent for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the As…

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Vargese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R

Section 11(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…e issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2017 is unsigned and therefore invalid and consequently the subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction. The assessee placed reliance on the decisions of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) and CIT & Another v. B.N. Keshav (Karn.) in ITA No. 21 of 2003 dated 03.04.2008. 4.7 He further submitted that the learned Assessing officer had verified all the information in relation to investments made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act and therefore the subsequent issue of notice u…

ASHISH SHARMA,GOPAL PURA BYE - PASS JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

…ioning of a wrong assessment year in the notice u/s 148 is a curable mistake under section 292 B. The decision of the Learned CIT(A) is wrong and is against the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala 82 ITR 821 (Supreme Court) and also the other decisions cited above. Conclusion In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to declare the assessment proceedings abinitio void. Ground No.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,60,074/- under the head long term…

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 207/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 207/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammad Abbas Ashraf Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chack Sadribal, Near REC, Ward-II, Srinagar Hazratbal, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, 190006 [PAN: AONPA1303B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None (Written submission) Respondent by : Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against…

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

…rayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); b) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); c) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). d) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) e) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) f) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del) 511 2. Additional Ground -2 [Related to issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on the date of filing of Return) "That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has erred in law while issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, (on 08/11/2016, that is the day…

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

DEEPAK GARG,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, KRNAL, HARYANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

…I.T.A. No. 1046/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “H” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1046/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 Shri Deepak Garg, DCIT, बनाम House No. 43-44, Vs. Gandhi Mandi, Central Circle, Panipat Haryana – 132103. Karnal. PAN No. AIRPG6737B अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/ Respondent Shri Pulkit Saini, िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Advocate; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by Shri Sanjay Tripathi, : Sr. D. R. 15/02/2023 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing : उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on 04/…

ITO -INTL TAX CIRCLE 3(3) (2), MUMBAI vs. RAHUL RAJNIKANT PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…ar ..." (Note : the original order contains grammatical mistakes and typing errors. The extracted portion reproduced as it is.) Having regard to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821, 823: "It is well-settled that the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 34 depends upon the issuance of a valid notice. If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason, the entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction." and the following observations of the Supreme Court in Joh…

RAHUL RAJNIKANT PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTL TAX CIRCLE 3(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

KALPESH RAMNIKLAL JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTL TAX CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

KALPESH RASHMIKANT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO IT ,CIRCLE- 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…1 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Rakesh Vaid, Vs Income-tax Officer, H.No. 11-D, pocket-B, Ward-62(2), New Delhi. Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi-110091 PAN- AACPV5536G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal Adv. & Sh. D.K. Gandhi Adv. Respondent by Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.02.2022 Date of pronouncement 08.04.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-t…

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2948/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 120(3)(a)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 282Section 54F

…treated as fetters on the jurisdiction of the authority reopening the proceedings under s. 147 and 148 r/w s. 151. That is why in CIT vs. Kurban I.T.A No. 2948/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 21 Abdulvahed A.Sheikh vs. ITO Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC), their Lordships pointed out that it was well-settled that the jurisdiction of the ITO to reopen assessment under s. 34 was dependent upon the issuance of a valid notice. If the notice issued by him was invalid for any reason, the entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, the view taken by this Cou…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2