CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd.

281 ITR 1High Court2006#1927 most cited

What is CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. authority for?

Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory prerequisite for valid assessment proceedings, which are void ab initio if such notice is not issued. If an assessee denies receiving the notice through an affidavit, the burden of proof shifts to the Revenue to demonstrate that the notice was properly served within the prescribed time.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. · Section 143(2) notice · valid assessment · assessment void ab initio · non-issuance of notice · non-service of notice · burden of proof · assessee affidavit · proper service · invalid assessment proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 69

Issues it is cited on

hundi transactionsection 115besection 153(c)(1)section 66section 153(c)section 292bbretraction of statementsection 80csection 282interest u/s 234apreponderance of probabilitysection 158bc

Judgments citing CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd.

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…9 _ Kailash Chand Yadav Vs ITO He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Mehta Pareek & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ii. ITO v. Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp) iii. Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., iv. CIT v/s Lunard Dimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the AO. And in the present case in support the assessee had filed the affidavit of his father who has given the money to the ass…

Girirajkripa Developers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…s mandatory for assuming valid jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. He has relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Vardhman Estate P. Ltd. 287 ITR 368 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Bhan Textiles P. Ltd. 287 ITR 370 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del) (iv) Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITRO 242 ITR 141 (Mad) (v) Sudev Industries Ltd. v. ITO 98 TTJ 97 (Del) (vi) Hind Book House v. ITO 92 lTD 415 (Del) (vii) Dulli Chand Laxmi Narain v. AC'IT 89 lTD 426 (Del) (viii) Dina Nath v. CIT 204 ITR 667 (J&K) (ix) Jayanthi Talkies Distributors v. CIT 120 ITR 576 (Mad)" Therefore the order passed without ser…

Shri D R Kumaraswamy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2958/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…years and thus site no.37 cannot be branded as long term capital asset under s.2(29A) of the Act and thus not eligible for consequential benefits under law. The ld.DR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs V.V.Modi..281 ITR 1, (1996)(Kar.) for the preposition that ownership is conferred on the assessee only from the date of execution of sale deed. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The short issue placed for our determination is whether the period of holding of capital asset for the purposes of classification of capital gains is to be seen with refe…

Shri Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5855/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…see is on the Revenue particularly when the assessee had categorically denied receiving the notice and therefore, it could not be said that notice was correctly addressed to the assessee.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lunar 36. Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del.) held that when the assessee has denied to have received the service of notice u/s 143(1)/143 (2), the burden of prove service of notice is on the Revenue to prove that the notice was serviced by returning following findings :- 20 ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del./2016 ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the…

Shri Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5854/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…see is on the Revenue particularly when the assessee had categorically denied receiving the notice and therefore, it could not be said that notice was correctly addressed to the assessee.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lunar 36. Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del.) held that when the assessee has denied to have received the service of notice u/s 143(1)/143 (2), the burden of prove service of notice is on the Revenue to prove that the notice was serviced by returning following findings :- 20 ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del./2016 ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the…

Shri Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5853/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: FixedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…see is on the Revenue particularly when the assessee had categorically denied receiving the notice and therefore, it could not be said that notice was correctly addressed to the assessee.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lunar 36. Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del.) held that when the assessee has denied to have received the service of notice u/s 143(1)/143 (2), the burden of prove service of notice is on the Revenue to prove that the notice was serviced by returning following findings :- 20 ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del./2016 ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the…

Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 7345/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…see is on the Revenue particularly when the assessee had categorically denied receiving the notice and therefore, it could not be said that notice was correctly addressed to the assessee.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lunar 36. Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del.) held that when the assessee has denied to have received the service of notice u/s 143(1)/143 (2), the burden of prove service of notice is on the Revenue to prove that the notice was serviced by returning following findings :- 20 ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del./2016 ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the…

Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 7344/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…see is on the Revenue particularly when the assessee had categorically denied receiving the notice and therefore, it could not be said that notice was correctly addressed to the assessee.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lunar 36. Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del.) held that when the assessee has denied to have received the service of notice u/s 143(1)/143 (2), the burden of prove service of notice is on the Revenue to prove that the notice was serviced by returning following findings :- 20 ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del./2016 ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the…

Harish Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 7343/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…see is on the Revenue particularly when the assessee had categorically denied receiving the notice and therefore, it could not be said that notice was correctly addressed to the assessee.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lunar 36. Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del.) held that when the assessee has denied to have received the service of notice u/s 143(1)/143 (2), the burden of prove service of notice is on the Revenue to prove that the notice was serviced by returning following findings :- 20 ITA Nos.5853, 5854 & 5855/Del./2016 ITA Nos.7343, 7344 & 7345/Del./2018 “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the…

Rajeev Goel, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1184/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, [Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 143(2)

…tracking report is placed at paper book page 254. Therefore, in view of these facts, the notice, even if presumed to be by jurisdictional Assessing Officer has not been served properly. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (281 ITR 1) has dealt with similar situation. The facts of the case and its decision is reproduced below:- “. On appeal before the CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that it had not received under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allegedly sent by registered post. An affidavit to this effect was filed. It was contended that the receipt issued…

B.M. Land Developers and Builders, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…y the highest court of the country, there remains no doubt whatsoever that `issue of notice’ cannot be substituted with `service of notice’. 21.4. It is pertinent to take stock of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del.) in which the assessment was held to be rightly quashed when no notice u/s.143(2) was served upon the assessee. In that case also, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banarasi Devi Vs. ITO and others (supra) was pressed into service, which constituted the foundation in the case of V.R.A. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for holding that da…

Anil Kisanlal Marda, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1763/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 143(2)

…the highest court of the country, there remains no doubt whatsoever that `issue of notice’ cannot be substituted with `service of notice’. 21.4. It is pertinent to take stock of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del.) in which the assessment was held to be rightly quashed when no notice u/s.143(2) was served upon the assessee. In that case also, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banarasi Devi Vs. ITO and others (supra) was pressed into service, which constituted the foundation in the case of V.R.A. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for holding that…

M/S. Goldex Furnishing Industries, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 1413/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80I

…r section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We rely upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., 383 ITR 448 (Del.) Pr. CIT vs. Silverline 383 ITR 455 (Del.) and CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd., 281 ITR 1 (Del.). Considering the above discussion, we are of the view that reassessment order is nullity and bad in law. The additional ground of the appeal of assessee is allowed. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the re-assessment order. 11 ITA.No.2203/Del./2010 & ITA.No.1413/Del./2013 M/s. Goldtex Furnishing Indust…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed and appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 3632/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e been served upon assessee within the period of limitation, therefore, entire assessment order is illegal and bad in law. In support of his submission, he has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd., [2006] 281 ITR 1 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-1 vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.665 of 2015 Dated 21.09.2015. 12 ITA.Nos. 1942 & 3632/Del./2013 Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8. On t…

Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed and appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 1942/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e been served upon assessee within the period of limitation, therefore, entire assessment order is illegal and bad in law. In support of his submission, he has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd., [2006] 281 ITR 1 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-1 vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.665 of 2015 Dated 21.09.2015. 12 ITA.Nos. 1942 & 3632/Del./2013 Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8. On t…

The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 938/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 48

…rpose of M/s. Peerless Developers Ltd, which is its subsidiary company, and since the said money was given to the subsidiary in course of business of the assessee. We are of the view that the principles decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.A Builders Ltd 281 ITR 1 (SC) squarely applies to the assessee`s case under consideration. We note that the assessee has advanced an interest free loan of Rs. l6.55 crs. to M/s. Peerless Developers Ltd, subsidiary company of the assessee, for business purposes. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that the said Loan of Rs.16.55 Crs. was given to M…

The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 937/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 48

…rpose of M/s. Peerless Developers Ltd, which is its subsidiary company, and since the said money was given to the subsidiary in course of business of the assessee. We are of the view that the principles decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.A Builders Ltd 281 ITR 1 (SC) squarely applies to the assessee`s case under consideration. We note that the assessee has advanced an interest free loan of Rs. l6.55 crs. to M/s. Peerless Developers Ltd, subsidiary company of the assessee, for business purposes. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that the said Loan of Rs.16.55 Crs. was given to M…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1611/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served within the stipulated period under s. 143(2) of the Act, t…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1610/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served within the stipulated period under s. 143(2) of the Act, t…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1609/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served within the stipulated period under s. 143(2) of the Act, t…