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

Zakia Begum, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3002/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. WA Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44A

…ued within 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.” CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. 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 i…

Renuka G., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2011-12 Ms. Renuka G., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.36, Hrishikesh, Income Tax, Goldsmith Street, Central Circle 1(3), Bellary – 583 101. Bangalore. PAN: ABYPR5731L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Venkatesan, CA Respondent by : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR) Date of hearing : 02.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2016 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the o…

M/S. Pooran Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4289/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…of the Act only after the return filed by the Assessee is actually scrutinised by the AO. 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: “the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 143 is mandatory and the legislature in their wisdom by using the word 'reaso…

Pooran Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1545/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…of the Act only after the return filed by the Assessee is actually scrutinised by the AO. 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: “the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 143 is mandatory and the legislature in their wisdom by using the word 'reaso…

M/S Rajit Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3403/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahuay: 2004-05 Rajit Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 430, Sector 28, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. Noida, Up-201 301 (Pan: Aaccr0963N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Ca Respondent By: Shri Ashis Chandra Mohanty, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashis Chandra Mohanty, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…of the Act only after the return filed by the Assessee is actually scrutinised by the AO. 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: “the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 143 is mandatory and the legislature in their wisdom by using the word 'reaso…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/585/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of 2015:DHC:9180-DB ITA No.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/586/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of 2015:DHC:9180-DB ITA No.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/580/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of 2015:DHC:9180-DB ITA No.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/581/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of 2015:DHC:9180-DB ITA No.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/578/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of 2015:DHC:9180-DB ITA No.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/579/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of 2015:DHC:9180-DB ITA No.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/587/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of 2015:DHC:9180-DB ITA No.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/588/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of 2015:DHC:9180-DB ITA No.…

M/S. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2207/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. I. C. Sudhir, Jm Ita Nos. 2203 To 2207/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09 M/S New Okhla Industrial Vs Acit, Circle-1, Development Authority, Sector-6, Nodia Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaln0120A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Raj Rani Lakra & Reema Malik, Cas Revenue By: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 20.01.2014 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2008-09 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Noida.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, DineshFor Respondent: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, CIT DR
Section 10(20)Section 144Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. I. C. Sudhir, JM ITA Nos. 2203 to 2207/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2004-05 to 2008-09 M/s New Okhla Industrial Vs ACIT, Circle-1, Development Authority, Sector-6, Nodia Noida (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAALN0120A Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Raj Rani Lakra & Reema Malik, CAs Revenue by: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.08.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders ea…

M/S. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2203/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. I. C. Sudhir, Jm Ita Nos. 2203 To 2207/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09 M/S New Okhla Industrial Vs Acit, Circle-1, Development Authority, Sector-6, Nodia Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaln0120A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Raj Rani Lakra & Reema Malik, Cas Revenue By: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 20.01.2014 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2008-09 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Noida.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, DineshFor Respondent: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, CIT DR
Section 10(20)Section 144Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. I. C. Sudhir, JM ITA Nos. 2203 to 2207/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2004-05 to 2008-09 M/s New Okhla Industrial Vs ACIT, Circle-1, Development Authority, Sector-6, Nodia Noida (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAALN0120A Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Raj Rani Lakra & Reema Malik, CAs Revenue by: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.08.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders ea…

Priya Sandeep Thorat, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4121/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.4121/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Priya Sandeep Thorat, C/O Vs. Acit-27(1)(Old Dcit- Jayesh Sanghrajka & Co, 22(1), Vashi Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Unit Navi Mumbai. No.405, Hind Rajsthan Centre, D.S.Phalke Road, Dadar(E), Mumbai-400014 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Ahjpm 5246 J (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Harshvardhana Datar यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.S.Bist सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 12-6-2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Is Aggrieved That The Assessment Framed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Without Issue Of Notice U/S.143(2) Is Not Sustainable In Law. 3. We Have Considered Rival Contentions & Carefully Gone Through The Orders Of The Authorities Below. In Para 2.1 & 2.2 Of The Assessment Order, The Ao Observed As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Harshvardhana DatarFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…The Shirt Company [ITA No.3450/Mum/2009 dated 30/06/2010] 3 The CIT v Mr. Salman Khan [ITA No.2362 of 2009 dated 01/12/2009-BOM HC] 4 CWT v. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia 300 ITR 193 (Bom) 5 ITO v. R.K. Gupta 308 ITR (AT) 49 (Del) 6 CIT v. Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All) 7 Kuber Tabocco Products Pvt. Ltd. v Dy. CIT 310 ITR 300 (AT) (SB) (Del) 8 ITO v. Smt. Kuldip Kaur (2011) 136 TTJ (Chd) (UO) 53 9 H. Gouthamchand v. Addl. CIT (2010) 131 TTJ (Bang) 204 10 Chandra R. Gandhi v. ITO 120 TTJ 786 (Mum) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR though admitted this fact that no notice u/s.143(2) has been issued…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-08 vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/519/2015HC Delhi14 Oct 2015
Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 201Section 68

…at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court. In CIT v. 2015:DHC:8689-DB ITA 519/2015 Page 6 of 9 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: “the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 143 is mandatory and the legislature in their wisdom by using the wor…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-08 vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-519/2015HC Delhi14 Oct 2015
Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 201Section 68

…at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court. In CIT v. 2015:DHC:8689-DB ITA 519/2015 Page 6 of 9 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: “the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 143 is mandatory and the legislature in their wisdom by using the wor…

Sh. Satish Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1446/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 1446/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Satish Kumar, Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ghaziabad Chamber No. 206-207, Ansal “Satyam”, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afxpk3855P Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhim Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2015 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar.

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhim Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…b initio. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Raj Kumar Chawala Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB) " CIT Vs Cebon India Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (P&H) 188 " CIT Vs Silver Streak Trading P. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 418 (Del) " CIT Vs Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All) " ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) " CIT Vs Adarsh Travel Bus Services (2012) 204 Taxman (All) 6. The ld. CIT(A) asked the remand report from the AO who furnished the same vide letter dated 02.09.2013 stated therein as under: “….3. But since no return of income was filed in compliance with notice u/s 148 within stipulated tim…