CIT v. Rajeev Sharma

336 ITR 678High Court2011#730 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajeev Sharma authority for?

It is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory period specified in Section 148, after applying mind to the material on record and being satisfied about escaped income. The provisions of Section 143(2) are mandatory in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rajeev Sharma · 336 ITR 678 · Section 143(2) · Section 148 · mandatory notice · reassessment proceedings · escaped income · assessment procedure · Allahabad High Court · 2011

Also reported as

192 Taxmann 197

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 147Section 292BBSection 144Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csection 292bbsettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)section 245dsection 244section 144ba

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajeev Sharma

Kalpanaben Nayankumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1877/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaita Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 68

…. 143(2) is to be mandatorily issued against return filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678,PCIT vs Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299. 7. My attention was then drawn to the facts of the assessee having filed return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and no notice being issued by the AO u/s 143(2) of the Act before proceeding to frame assessment in the present case. 8. Drawing my attention to page 2 of the assessment order,…

Anil Agrawal, Muzaffarpur vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cir-1, Muzzaffarpur, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on this issue

ITA 511/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 147(1)Section 148Section 148A

…cial Telecommunications reported in (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Solarpur Cold Storage P Ltd (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 105 (All); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma reported in [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.). Since the Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the specified time period, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and the same is accordingly held to be non-est.” 6 I.T.A. N…

Jatin Dilipbhai Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 892/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…or expedient’ to do so. This exercise by the AO under Section 143 (2) of the Act is qualitatively different from the issuance of a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, which as noted hereinbefore, is in a standard proforma.” CIT Vs. Rajeev Sharma, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All): When the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow it and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. It has been provided that after receipt of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, afresh return may be filed and in consequence thereof, the Assessing Officer has to apply his mind…

Jatin Dilipbhai Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 891/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…or expedient’ to do so. This exercise by the AO under Section 143 (2) of the Act is qualitatively different from the issuance of a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, which as noted hereinbefore, is in a standard proforma.” CIT Vs. Rajeev Sharma, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All): When the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow it and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. It has been provided that after receipt of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, afresh return may be filed and in consequence thereof, the Assessing Officer has to apply his mind…

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…the same in not compliance of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 4. BECAUSRE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law as well as on facts in observing that the judgment passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma reported in 336 ITR 678 on the issue relating to non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) after filing of return, not applicable in the case of the appellant as in the present case no additional time limit was given to the appellant to file his return after the issuance of notice dated 11.02.2008, as the Id. Assessing Officer himself had issued notice under section 1…

M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2101/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250

…ly after the return filed by the assessee is actually scrutinised by the Assessing Officer. 14. The interplay of sections 143 (2) and 148 of the Act formed the subject matter of at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Rajeev Sharma [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All) it was held that a plain reading of section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall be incumbent to send a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It was observed (page 687): "The provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act is mandatory and the Legislature in its wisdom by us…

Anand Sawroop, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Nahan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 709/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"" एवं "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO.709/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Anand Sawroop The ITO बनाम S/o Sh. Ravinder Sawroop Sainwala Nahan (H.P.) Majra, Paonta Sahib, Sirmour- 173025, Himachal Pradesh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AUDPS3233L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Advocate Shri M.L. Jhamba,…

Vishnu Kumar, Bharatpur vs. ACIT Or JCIT Or DCIT Or Asst. CIT Or ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bharatpur

ITA 85/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Act”), By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Has Been Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Was Before Learned Cit(A), Having Felt Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, (CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 85/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sh. Vishnu Kumar cuke ACIT/JCIT/DCIT/Asst.CIT/ITO, E221, RIICO Industrial Area, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Bharatpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIAPK7814L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Mukesh S…

Netherlands Operating Company B.V., Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Taxation 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)(b)Section 147Section 148

…e Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2019] 417 ITR 325 (SC) 6. ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) 7. PCIT vs Silver Line [2016] 383 ITR 455 (Delhi) 8. PCIT vs Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) 9. CIT vs Rajeev Sharma [2011] 336 ITR 678 (Allahabad) 10. ACIT vs P & R Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No. 4944/Del/2018) 10. Before us, the Ld.DR submitted that even if notice u/s.143(2) was not issued, it could be cured by sec.292BB of the Act. We don’t agree with such a contention of the Ld.DR. We note that similar contention was raised by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in…

Fixed & Mobile Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fixed & Mobile Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 1 Raffles Place, International Taxation, #28-01 One Raffles Place, Tower-2, Circle 1(3)(1), Singapore, Singapore 9999. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcf4910G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca & Ms Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fixed & Mobile Pte Ltd., Vs ACIT, 1 Raffles Place, International Taxation, #28-01 One Raffles Place, Tower-2, Circle 1(3)(1), Singapore, Singapore 9999. New Delhi. PAN: AABCF4910G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Alok Vasant, FCA & Ms Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: Thes…

Ashwani Kumar and Co. Private Limited, Rajouri Garden vs. ITO Ward 3(3), C.R. Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 179/DEL/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chella Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 124(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘H’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHELLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 179/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2007-08] Ashwani Kumar and Co. P. Ltd Vs. The Income-tax Officer C – 10, Ground Floor, Ring Road Ward – 3(3) Rajhouri Garden, New Delhi New Delhi PAN – AACCA 044 IJ (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Department By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assesse…

Md. Hakimuddin., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1160/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…cial Telecommunications reported in (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Solarpur Cold Storage P Ltd (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 105 (All); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma reported in [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.). Since the Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the specified time period, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and the same is accordingly held to be non-est.” 3. In light…

Md. Hakimuddin, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward. -1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1159/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…cial Telecommunications reported in (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Solarpur Cold Storage P Ltd (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 105 (All); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma reported in [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.). Since the Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the specified time period, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and the same is accordingly held to be non-est.” 3. In light…

Mamta Choraria, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 214/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mamta Choraria Income Tax Officer, Ward – 36(1), Bl-A2 Ganges Garden Vs Kolkata 106, K.C.S. Road Howrah -711102 [Pan : Aczpc6470F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 06/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal, We Will Take Up The Legal Issue Challenging The Validity Of Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Time Limit To Issue Notice U/S 148 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014- 15, Expired On 11/03/2021 & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued & Served Through E-Mail On 01/04/2021. He Thus Contended That The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Is Barred By Limitation And, Therefore, The 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 148Section 250

…cial Telecommunications reported in (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Solarpur Cold Storage P Ltd (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 105 (All); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma reported in [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.). Since the Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the specified time period, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and the same is accordingly held to be non-est. Since we hav…

Dhaval Exim Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2532/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd., Acit, 5(1)(2), 117-A, 117-A, Panchratna Bldg., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera Maharishi Karve Road, House, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aadcd 0472 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr : 04/04/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, 5(1)(2), 117-A, 117-A, Panchratna Bldg., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera Maharishi Karve Road, House, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AADCD 0472 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee by Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR : 04/04/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 25/04/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order…

Manju Devi Shah, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1280/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.1280/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manju Devi Shah……………..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant P-281 Scheme Vim Cit Road, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054. [Pan: Amkps3650G] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bibekananda Madhu, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Apart From Challenging The Additions On Merits Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities Of Rs.42,12,703/- U/S 68 Of The Act By Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Earned By The Assessee As Bogus, Has Also Challenged The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment. 3. Since, The Legal Grounds Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Hit At The Very Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer To

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…cial Telecommunications reported in (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Solarpur Cold Storage P Ltd (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 105 (All); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma reported in [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.). Since the Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the specified time period, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and the same is accordingly held to be non-est. Since we hav…

M/S. Osian Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 320/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Osian Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Unit No. 1501, 15Th Floor Vs Kolkata Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Kolkata – 700001 [Pan: Aaaco3479N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, Fca Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/05/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal, At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Case Of The Assessee Is Squarely Covered In Favour Of The Assessee By The Decision Of The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Itat In The Assessee’S Own Case For Assessment Year 2009-10, Wherein The Tribunal While Dealing With The Issue, That Whether The Date On Which The Assessing Officer Has Signed The Notice U/S 143(2) Or The Date On Which The Notice Is Actually Sent To The Assessee Via E-Mail, Has To Be Considered For The Purpose Of Determining

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…cial Telecommunications reported in (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Solarpur Cold Storage P Ltd (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 105 (All); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma reported in [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.). Since the Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the specified time period, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and the same is accordingly held to be non-est. Since we hav…

ITO 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaress Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection

ITA 794/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Income Tax Officer 3(1)(1) Aaress Realty Private Limited Room No. 666, 6Th Floor, 810, 8Th Floor, Raheja Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Free Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021

For Respondent: Shri Eknath Shirke
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 80C

…e ld. A.O. and not a directory procedure. The ld. AR contended that the assessment order is null and void for failure on the part of the ld. A.O. to follow the mandatory procedure. The ld. AR relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Shah [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All) and CIT vs. Alstom T & D India Limited [2014] 226 Taxman 103 (Mag)(Mad). 8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that the ld. A.O. has specifically mentioned in the assessment order that notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 05.07.2016 and served upon the assesse…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in- Situ), Central Circle, Jabalpur vs. Manish Kumar Sarogi, Katni

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

ITA 39/JAB/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 153A

…hin time. It has been further held that resort cannot be taken by the Revenue to section 292BH to give a go-bye to mandatory requirement of issuance of notice within the statutory fixed by the proviso to section I43(2) of the Act.” 12.5 CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. “In view of above submissions and case laws, it has been established that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the present case and therefore the impugned assessment is liable to be annulled.” 12.6 M/s Sapthagiri Finance and Investments vs. ITO: TC(A). No. 159 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012 (Mad HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289] R…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jabalpur vs. Shri Manish Kumar Saraogi, Katni

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

ITA 62/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 153A

…hin time. It has been further held that resort cannot be taken by the Revenue to section 292BH to give a go-bye to mandatory requirement of issuance of notice within the statutory fixed by the proviso to section I43(2) of the Act.” 12.5 CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. “In view of above submissions and case laws, it has been established that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the present case and therefore the impugned assessment is liable to be annulled.” 12.6 M/s Sapthagiri Finance and Investments vs. ITO: TC(A). No. 159 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012 (Mad HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289] R…