CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal

417 ITR 325Supreme Court of India2019#396 most cited

What is CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal authority for?

Issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement for completing an assessment when a return is filed, including reassessment under Section 147/143(3). The complete absence of this notice renders the assessment invalid and is not curable by Section 292BB.

225

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Laxman Das Khandelwal · Section 143(2) notice mandatory · non-issuance of notice · assessment invalid · Section 292BB · curative provision · service of notice · Section 147 reassessment · Section 143(3) assessment · Hotel Blue Moon affirmed

Also reported as

108 Taxmann.com 183266 Taxmann 171310 CTR 8

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 147Section 143(3)Section 292BBSection 142(1)Section 139Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 292bbsection 292bsection 124(3)section 292section 120section 29section 124section 158bcservice of noticesection 127section 139(4)section 158

Judgments citing CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 586/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…n Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), held as follows:— "7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in t…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 585/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…n Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), held as follows:— "7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in t…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 584/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…n Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), held as follows:— "7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in t…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 583/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…n Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), held as follows:— "7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in t…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 582/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…n Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), held as follows:— "7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in t…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 581/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…n Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), held as follows:— "7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in t…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 580/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…n Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), held as follows:— "7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in t…

Trupti Marketing Private Limited, Margao vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Margao

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 283/PAN/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Jan 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: SHRI S.S. GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…ad clearly submitted that its earlier original return dated 27.11.1998 be treated as the one filed in response to initiation of re-assessment proceedings. 3 Trupti Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 4. Faced with the situation, I quote CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC), ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2013) 32 taxman.com 162 (Bom) to quash the impugned reopening itself for foregoing clinching reason. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee‟s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th January, 2023. (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे…

Sh. Sunil Khullar, Samrala vs. DCIT, Circle, Khanna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.137/Chandi/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/O Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [Pan:Azqpk0380E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2022 Order

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 150(1)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH CHANDIGARH Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.137/CHANDI/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/o Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [PAN:AZQPK0380E] vs. DCIT, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances by: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR, appeared on behalf of…

Divya Raghavan Vijayan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4352/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.4352/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Divya Raghavan Vijayan बिधम/ Acit Circle-3, Kalyan Shop No.7, Goalawli, Kalyan Shill 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Road, Opp Manpada Police Murbad Road, Station, Kalyan-421301 Dombivli East- 421201 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahupv7112M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shashikant Goyal Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Shashikant GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40A

…e-3, Kalyan who has framed the assessment of assessee for AY. 2014-15 u/s 143(3) of the Act has not issued the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act (refer decision in the case of Hotel Blue Moon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal 417 ITR 325), before the cut-off date that is falling on 30th Sep, 2015. Consequently, the ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan could not have framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2016. (even though it is noted that ITO ward 33, Thane had issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 03.09.2015, however, the AO who frames the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act ne…

Shri Shri Harish Kumar Chhabada, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (Cg)

ITA 323/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 323/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Harish Kumar Chhabada H. No. 490, Near Rly Line Road, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acapc7574M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…Shri Harish Kumar Chhabada Vs. ITO-2(1) The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325(SC). It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory for the purpose of framing of an assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, therefore, in the absence of the same the assessment in hand could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed. 9. On a specific query by the bench that t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7, Pune vs. PAN International, Pune

ITA 175/PUN/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2020 & Co No. 23/Pun/2022 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Pan International, 347, Afl House, Off Dhole Patil Rd, Behind Hotel Meru, Pune – 411 001 . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pan: Aabfp4234F & Cross Objector द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Revenue Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Quashing The Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune[For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 On Technical-Cum-Legal Ground.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 40

…the co-operation of the respondent assessee in reassessment proceedings vis-à-vis application provisions of section 292BB is concerned, the similar issue was came up before the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of “CIT Vs Lakshman Das Khandelwal” reported in 417 ITR 325 wherein their lordship considering its earlier decision in the case of “ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon” reported at 321 ITR 362, laid down the law regarding the question whether notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act would be mandatory for the purpose of making an assessment under the said provision and thereafter, considered the question whether Secti…

Progressive Currency Bazaar P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4403/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.4403/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Progressive Currency Bazaar Pvt. Ltd. 122–124, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial ……………. Appellant Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053 PAN – AAACR6461K v/s Income Tax Officer …………….Respondent Ward–8(1)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue by : Ms. Smita Nair Date of Hearing – 16/11/2022 Date of Order – 01/12/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been f…

Legal Heir of Late Shri Satish Indra Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1839/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d by Hon’ble 6 Legal Heir of Late Shri Satish Indra Sharma Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Sodder Builder & Developers (P.) Ltd. (2020) 115 taxmann.com 251 (Bombay), decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) and order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Sapankumar U Jain vs. ITO (2022) 94 ITR (Trib) 216 (Mumbai). 7. However, on the other hand, in order to repel the arguments addressed by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue by relying upon the order passed by the AO and Ld. CIT(A) contended that aft…

Shri Hirachand Javerchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Hirachand Javerchand Jain Dcit Cc-4(2) 15, Dadi Seth Agairy Lane, Room No.-655, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- 400 002 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aadpj3101C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Hirachand Javerchand Jain DCIT CC-4(2) 15, Dadi Seth Agairy Lane, Room No.-655, 6th Floor, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- 400 002 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN No. AADPJ3101C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 30/11/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against orde…

Dr. Rajendra Chandak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 16/NAG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dr.Rajendra Chandak, Acit, Darodkar Chowk, Vs. Circle-4, Central Avenue Road, Nagpur Nagpur, Maharashtra- 440 018 Pan : Aaopc4118R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Saket Bhattad Respondent By Shri G.J. Ninawe Date Of Hearing 03-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21-11-2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…2. I first of all come to the assessee’s legal argument challenging validity of the impugned re-assessment dated 23.11.2012 on account of lack of any section 143(2) notice held to be mandatory in CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 2 Dr. Rajendra Chandak 417 ITR 325 (SC). The Revenue could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer had issued section 148 notice dated 17.08.2012 which stood served on 21.08.2012. The assessee before us have filed its letter dated 01.09.2012 (acknowledged and received on 05.09.2012) that his original return of income dated 22.09.2008 be treated as one filed in r…

Amiya Gopal Dutta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Jpg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144Section 292B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 126/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amiya Gopal Dutta Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata (PAN: ADBPD 9197 P) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 09.11.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 16 .11.2022 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Sudipto Guha, C…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 75/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…be struck down on the said count itself. In support of its aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325(SC). 11.1 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the A.O had thereafter issued a letter dated 23.03.2016 to the assessee company, wherein referring to the assessee’s letter dated 16.09.2014 (supra) he had called upon it to e- file its return of income in compliance to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, so that the consequential assessmen…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 224/RPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…be struck down on the said count itself. In support of its aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325(SC). 11.1 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the A.O had thereafter issued a letter dated 23.03.2016 to the assessee company, wherein referring to the assessee’s letter dated 16.09.2014 (supra) he had called upon it to e- file its return of income in compliance to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, so that the consequential assessmen…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 223/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…be struck down on the said count itself. In support of its aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325(SC). 11.1 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the A.O had thereafter issued a letter dated 23.03.2016 to the assessee company, wherein referring to the assessee’s letter dated 16.09.2014 (supra) he had called upon it to e- file its return of income in compliance to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, so that the consequential assessmen…