CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala

82 ITR 821Supreme Court of India1971#3600 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.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 147Section 148Section 144Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BBSection 127(1)

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala

M/S. Emta Coal Ltd., ( Erstwhile Known As M/S. Eastern Mineral & Trading Agency ), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolakta

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2422/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…T reported in 242 Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT reported in 242 Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala reported in [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC) CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala reported in [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC) CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala reported in [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC)  CIT vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick reported in [1987] 165 ITR 107 (Cal.) CIT vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick reported in [1987] 165 ITR 107 (Cal.) CIT vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick reported in…

K.J. Khilanani Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by the assessee on the reopening of assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is allowed

ITA 35/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 35 & 36/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 35 & 36/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09) K. J. Khilnani Education ITO (E) - 1(4), बिधम/ Trust, Mumbai Pin- Mori Road, Mahim Vs. Mumbai-400 016 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAATK3073F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N. M. Porwal, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.02.2021 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER S…

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

…r Gill 12. We also find that only the PAN mentioned in the notice do not belong to the assessee. 13. We have also gone through the case laws relied by the ld. AR. 14. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II Vs. Kurban Hussain IbrahimJi Mithiborvala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC): Refers to reopening of a wrong year. In that case the assessment for year 1949-50 has been reopened instead 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. A…

Income Tax Officer 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Lafit Lighting Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 698/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Gerald-Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…vitiate the reassessment 5 M/s. Lafit Lighting Private Limited Assessment Year :2009-10 proceedings in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Y.Narayan Chetty V/s ITO (1959 35 ITR 388) and CIT V/s Kurban Hussaain Ibrahmiji Mithiborwala (1973 82 ITR 821). Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Tribunal in ACIT V/s Blue Star Ltd. (40 ITR-Trib. 35) and ITO V/s Jolly Makers Pvt. Ltd. (20 ITJ 262). Therefore, it was submitted that AO did not comply with mandatory requirement of recording of reasons before issuance of notice. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed…

Ram Narayan, Kota vs. ITO, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 428/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Naresh Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 282

…otice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the assessee without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. He has also relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala 82 ITR 821 (SC) Smt. S. Nachiar vs. ITO & Others 326 ITR 77 (Mad.) CIT vs. Chetan Gupta 382 ITR 613 (Del.) Km. Teena Gupta vs. CIT 400 ITR 376 (All.) Thus the ld. A/R has contended that there is no valid service of notice under section 148 on the assessee and therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand…

Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4086 To 4088/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Mr. Chirag Rajendra Shah Ito, Ward 24(1)(4), 502, 5Th Floor, C-13, D-305, Siddhi Vinayak Tower, बनाम/ Off Tank Road, Orlem, Malad, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-64 Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afxps 7904 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. K. Sharma & Ms. Taneshka Sharma ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…ta Parikh & Co Ltd. 30 ITR 181 (SC), Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd v ITO (Bombay High Court), Ramjidas Mahaiiram (1936) 42 ITR 25 (Cal), CIT v Dumraon Cold Storage & Refrigeration Service (1974) 97 ITR 137 (Patna), CIT v Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1972) 82 ITR 821 (SC), Thyyabali Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 661JTR 147 (SC) etc. 6. Considering the above submissions, as regards the reopening, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same by observing as under: Mr. Chirag Rajendra Shah 5.1 So far the validity of re-opening is concerned, it is found that the reasons for reopening was provide…

Prabhat Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 798/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (Sr. DR)

…le to be set aside in view of the law settled in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), Hemant Traders Vs. ITO (2015) 375 ITR 167 (Bombay) and CIT ITA. No.532/M/17 798/M/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC). However, on the other hand the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contentions and argued that the AO was having knowledge earlier before issuance of notice, therefore, the notice u/s 147 of the Act is not bad in law. In view of the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record, we n…

Regency Mahavir Properties, Pune vs. ACIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 682/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sunil U Pathak & Smt Geetaa GuwalaniiFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 132Section 153A

…ced on the decision of J M Trading Corporation vs. ACIT 20 SOT 489 (Mum); Dr. Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah v. ACIT 36(II) ITCL 62 (Ahmedabad ‘D’ Bench of the Tribunal); CIT vs. Wipro Finance Ltd. 323 ITR 467 (Kar) and CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala 82 ITR 821 (SC). Thus, on the basis of these decisions, it was submitted that since the assessment u/s 153A is based on a invalid notice issued u/s. 153A the same must therefore be quashed. 6. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee has taken this ground before the CIT(A) but the CIT(A) dismissed the ground mentioning that this ground does not…

B.Malathi, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2097/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: 13.11.2017
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…at since assessee’s husband received the notice and he has not put any objection, it deemed as a valid notice. In my opinion, this view of the AO is having no merits as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala in [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC) that Notice u/s.148 should mention the correct assessment year. A notice issued for one assessment year cannot be considered as a notice for other assessment years. In such circumstances, the AO has no jurisdiction to re-open the assessment for assessment year 2007-08. Being so, I do not find any merit in the argument of the ld.D.R. Furt…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Mhatre Electronics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6470/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 144

…v. Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj). It is well-settled that if any notice issued by the Department would become void for want of jurisdiction as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrhimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC). In view of the above, it appears that the impugned order / notice were issued by the Department were not within the period prescribed and it was barred by about less than two months, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner succeeds and allowed. The impugned order…

Mhatre Electronics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6349/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 144

…v. Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj). It is well-settled that if any notice issued by the Department would become void for want of jurisdiction as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrhimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC). In view of the above, it appears that the impugned order / notice were issued by the Department were not within the period prescribed and it was barred by about less than two months, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner succeeds and allowed. The impugned order…

M/S Vijaya Woven Sacks Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessees are allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…ivocal. Issuing of a notice is not a mere formality. If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason, the entire proceeding taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on CIT Vs Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971 82 ITR 821 (SC) and CIT Vs Ram Das Deokinandan Prasaci (HElP) (2005) 277 ITR 197 (All). 11. We hope that the detailed objections are acceptable and consZ6-ring the objections judiciously, your goodself would drop the further proceedings and spare us from the unnecessary ordeal on merits. The proposed reassessment is challenged on the ground of being arbitra…

Commissioner of Income Tax

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

…und is different. 2012:DHC:871-DB ITA Nos. 7/2006 + connected matters Page 20 of 32 32. In Kurbanhussein Ibrahimji Mithiborwala versus Commissioner of Income Tax, [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC) notice under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was issued to the assessee for the assessment year 1948-49. Along with this notice under Section 34, another notice issued was under Section 22(2) and Assessment Year 1949-50 was mentioned therein. It was held that the primary or the main notice was under Section 34 of the 1922 Act a…