CIT v. M. Chellappan

281 ITR 444High Court2006#7982 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 120(3)Section 139Section 139(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. M. Chellappan

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…eeding to decide the controversy with regard to the escaped assessment, is mandatorily required to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Madras). The Hon’ble High Court had observed that where the assessee had filed a return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, but no notice under section 143(2) was issued after filing of the said return of income, then, the same is a violation of the mandatory provisions of law, and therefore, the re-assessment order pas…

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1311/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 37(1)

…eeding to decide the controversy with regard to the escaped assessment, is mandatorily required to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Madras). The Hon’ble High Court had observed that where the assessee had filed a return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, but no notice under section 143(2) was issued after filing of the said return of income, then, the same is a violation of the mandatory provisions of law, and therefore, the re- assessment order pa…

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

ITA 2914/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…tation on the Assessing Officer not to issue notice if the period of twelve months had expired. Section 148 of the Income-tax Act had come up for consideration before several High Courts. A learned Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. M. Chellappan [2006] 281 ITR 444 had occasion to consider the provision. The Assessing Officer proceeded fo reassess under section 147 of the Income-tax Act and completed the assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2] within the time stipulated. The order was confirmed in appeal. The Tribunal had set aside the order on the ground that notice under sect/on 143(2] was…

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, MUMBAI

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

ITA 2913/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2007-08
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…tation on the Assessing Officer not to issue notice if the period of twelve months had expired. Section 148 of the Income-tax Act had come up for consideration before several High Courts. A learned Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. M. Chellappan [2006] 281 ITR 444 had occasion to consider the provision. The Assessing Officer proceeded fo reassess under section 147 of the Income-tax Act and completed the assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2] within the time stipulated. The order was confirmed in appeal. The Tribunal had set aside the order on the ground that notice under sect/on 143(2] was…

AMRUTBHAI G PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on preliminary legal ground alone without going into merits of the case

ITA 362/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, Advocate & Shri
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…ce of such service AO cannot proceed to make an inquiry on return file in compliance with notice issued u/s. 148. - The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.S. Mangudi (2008) 304 ITR 388 and also in other case namely CIT Vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 has held that where there is no well service of notice u/s. 143(2) within the time limit the assessment was found invalid. - The Hon'ble Guhawati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Deep Baruah (2010) 329 ITR 362 has held that the reassessment is bad in law for lack of notice u/s.143(2)of I.T. Act. - The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of C…

FLOVEL ENERGY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6485/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ratchi Bimal, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…CIT (2004) 90 TTJ 915 (Agra); iii) ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC); iv) Raj Kumar Chawla vs. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 (Del-Trib); v) ACIT vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (2015) 379 ITR 14 (All); vi) CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2005) 281 ITR 444 (Mad); vii) ITO vs. DLG Enterprises (2011) 53 DTR 65 (Lkw-Trib); viii) ACIT vs. Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. (2015) 128 DTR 136 (Mum-Trib); ix) Alpine Electronics Asia (P) Ltd. vs. DGIT (2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del); & x) ACIT vs. Ashed Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 62 taxmann.com 340 (Bangalore-Trib) 8 8. Referring to the following d…

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

…is, therefore, clear that such notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (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 w…

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

…is, therefore, clear that such notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (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 w…

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

…is, therefore, clear that such notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (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 w…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1608/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

…is, therefore, clear that such notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (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 w…

THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI PARIMAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2366/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2366/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. L. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 292B

…ce with notice issued u/s. 148. - The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.S. Mangudi (2008) 304 ITR 388 and also in other case namely CIT Vs. ITA No. 2366/Ahd/15 [DCIT vs. Shri Parimal Sureshbhai Patel] A.Y. 2009-10 - 6 - M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 has held that where there is no well service of notice u/s. 143(2) within the time limit the assessment was found invalid. - The Hon'ble Guhawati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Deep Baruah (2010) 329 ITR 362 has held that the reassessment is bad in law for lack of notice u/s.143(2)of I.T. Act. - The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of C…

AMIT TYAGI,G B NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2505/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10 Amit Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), B-6 (Basement), J.S. Arcade, Ghaziabad Near Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18 Noida (Pan: Adupt6382P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Chaman Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69

…is mandatory. In the absence of notice being served within the stipulated period u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessment proceeding comes to an end and deemed to have become final. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of CIT v.M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P & h) V.C. Palaniappan (2006) 284 ITR 257 (Mad), CIT v. Bhan Textiles P.Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Delhi), CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Delhi) and Deputy CIT v. Mahi Vally Hotels and Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj). 4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. AJWA FUN WORLD & RESORT LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 563/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09
Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ITA No. 563/Ahd/2015 DCIT vs. Ajwa Fun World Reseort Ltd Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Mahavir Prasad JM] Assessment Year : 2008-09 DCIT .......…………......Appellant Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodara Vs. M/s. Ajwa Fun World & Resort Ltd .......................Respondent PO Ajwa Compound, Ajwa-Nimeta Road, At. Ajwa, Vadodra – 391 510 [PAN : AABCA 7951 N] Appearances by: VK Singh for the appellant NS Porwal for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 16.10.2017 Date of pronouncing the order : 27.10.2017 O R D E…

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. M/S JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1255/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.N Dutta, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Das, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member, and Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1255/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 A.C.I.T, Cir-1, Hooghly Vs. M/s. Jairam Distributors PAN: AACFJ 1808K (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/department : Shri S.M.Das, JCIT, ld.DR For the Respondent/assessee: Shri V.N Dutta, Advocate, ld.AR Date of Hearing: 01-03-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 13- 05-2015 ORDER SHRI S.S VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM This appeal of the revenue is arising out of the order of the Learned CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata in appeal no.…