How many judgments cite CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (82 ITR 888), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 144, Section 1961, Section 282.

CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh

82 ITR 888Supreme Court of India1971#2841 most cited

What is CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh authority for?

For substituted service of notice by affixation to be valid, the serving officer must exercise all due and reasonable diligence to find the assessee or their agent, strictly adhering to the procedure under Rule 17 of Order V of the Civil Procedure Code. Failure to follow this proper procedure renders the service invalid and cannot sustain subsequent proceedings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh · 82 ITR 888 · service of notice · Section 282 · Rule 17 Order V CPC · substituted service · service by affixation · proper procedure notice · natural justice · reassessment notice invalid

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 144 Section 1961 Section 282 Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 33b section 282(1)section 282 section 64 section 33 onus of proof paper company service of notice section 28 best judgment assessment section 271(1)(b)panchnama

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ss of law as mandated to safeguard all assessee from any misuse of these provisions relating to service of a notice or reporting non-existence of a particular person on any given address made vague inquiry, reliance is placed upon CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh, 82 ITR 888 (SC). Such spot inquiry is not in accordance with law and has no creditability or any evidentiary value. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held to responsible merely on the basis of vague and illegal spot inquiry by inspector. 16. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant humbly submits that profit element on the six creditor of which additio…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 888/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…ours & Travels (P) Ltd. reported in 394 ITR 37 (Cal). In this case law, the relevant portions may be extracted for our guidance and reference: “15. Mr. Agarwal has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.LT. v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh [1971] 82 ITR 888 to contend that there was no proper service of the notice to show-cause and the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the 1961 Act was in breach of the principles of natural justice. In that case, it was held, on the aspect of non-service of notice, that substituted service in the manner provided under the Code of Civil Procedure o…

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 4651/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shir Mahavir Singh() Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…0.03.2016 having been sent at wrong address the subsequent attempt through serve through affixture is bereft of authority, without following proper procedure and thus, not sustainable. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramender Nath Ghose [82 ITR 888] after analyzing the Rule 17 of Order V of Civil Procedure Court in respect of service of notice/summons etc. held as under: "Admittedly, the assessees have not been personally served in these cases. Therefore, we have to see whether the alleged service by affixation was in accordance with law. It is necessary to mention that, according to the as…

MECONS COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ITO, WARD 4(2), KOL, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2396/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2396/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Mecons Commotrade Private Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-4(2), Kolkata 211, Eastern Building, 19, Mukherjee Road, Kolkata Pan No. : Aabcm 7696 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Yash Baid, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.09.2024 In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069178720(1) For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri Yash Baid, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Madhumita Das, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That The Issue Relates To Reopening Of The Assessment By Issuance Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act. It Was The Submission That A Notice Has Been Alleged To Have Been Issued U/S.148 Of The Act On 31.03.2016. It Was The Submission That Such Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Has Not Been Served On The Assessee. When This Was Put To The Ld. Sr. Dr, The Paper Book Has Been Filed Containing 08 Pages, Which Read As Follows :-

For Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 282

…oad. It was the submission that the report of the service by affixation did not comply with the requirement of the Section 282 of the Act. The ld. AR further drew my attention the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramendra Nath Ghosh (1971) 82 ITR 888 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the notice can be served even by the method provided under Rule 17 of Order V of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under :- 9. Rule 17 of Order V of the Civil Procedure Code reads: Where the defendant or his agent…

ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRABHAT,ARRAH vs. PCIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 154Section 263

…se any enquiry results against the assessee, the substance of such information must be disclosed to the assessee to provide a fair opportunity of rebuttal. Failure to do so vitiates the order under Section 263. 10. That in *CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh* [(1971) 82 ITR 888 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the service of notice under Section 263 is not in accordance with the law, it cannot be said that the assessee has been given a proper opportunity to put forward their case, thereby rendering the order invalid. 11. That in *CIT v. National Taj Traders* [(1979) 121 ITR 535 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme C…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJNIL SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4050/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., Room No.91, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. 2B Grant Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcr3491C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pitambar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.320/15-16/2297 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pitambar Das, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…been served through affixture as provided in Code of Civil Procedure. Here provisions of Order V Rules 17 to 20 of CPC are relevant. After taking notice of above statutory provisions, their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Ramendra Nath Ghosh v. CIT, 82 ITR 888, observed as under (as per head note): "The Inspector of Income-tax who had to serve notices under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, claimed to have served the notices by affixing them on the assessee's place of business but in his report did not mention the names and addresses of the persons who identified the place of business of the asse…

SHRI MAHIPAL,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 20000-01 Shri Mahipal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ward-Ii(4), Advocate, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad Main Bazar, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad -121004. Pan: Atvpp9291R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1034/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…lace which was not functional and closed is not a valid service of assessment order. The Counsel for the assessee placed reliance ITA Nos.1033 & 1034/Ahd/2019 Babulal Punmaji Gehlot vs. ITO Asst. Year –2007-08 - 7– on the case of CIT vs. Ramendranath Ghosh 82 ITR 888 (SC) and on the case of CIT vs. Shersingh 37 taxmann.com 418 in support of the above contention. 7. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that even the assessee has not denied service of notice dated 24.09.2008 under Section 143(2) of the Act, which was duly served upon the assessee on 30.09.2008. Therefore, even despite valid service of notice on…

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

ITO,WARD-5, HISAR vs. THE VIRAT COOP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4166/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Ward 5, Vs. The Virat Co-Op House Building Hisar Society Ltd. Alia The Hisar Virat Co-Op Building Society Ltd., H. No. 110A, Sector 15, Hisar Pan :Aaeat0472C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…as required under the Act. I have perused the record of the A.O. and have come to conclusion that A.O. has failed to discharge his duty as per Section 282 of the Act in view of judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (1971) 82 ITR 888 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AVI-OIL India Pvt. Ltd. (20101323 ITR 0242 and other judgments relied by the appellant reproduced above. Due procedure has not been adopted in the service of notice. I, therefore, quash the order passed in this case. 8. We have carefully perused the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) and the evidences plac…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…and the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of way for the purpose of avoiding service or for any other reason, summons cannot be served in ordinary way, (vii) In the case of CIT Vs, Ramendra Nath Ghosh (1971) 82 ITR 888 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the order of High Court by holding that, on the facts that service of notices was not in accordance with law and, therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had been given a proper opportunity to put forward their case as required by section 33B of the Income-tax Act, The facts in this case were…

GAJENDER SINGH JADON,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-57(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6539/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

…y post or in such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the purpose of service of summons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration of the above statutory provisions in the case of CIT vs. Ramender Nath Ghose (1971) 82 ITR 888, held (Page No. 890 & 891) as under:- “Admittedly, the assessees have not been personally served in these cases. Therefore, we have to see whether the alleged service by affixation was in accordance with law. It is necessary to mention that, according to the assessees, they had no place of business at all. They claim that they have closed their b…

BHANWARI DEVI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tion 282 of the Act. This says that a notice or requisition under the Act may be served on the person therein named either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC). In CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh, 82 ITR 888(SC), the hon’ble court has discussed the Rule 17 of Order V of CPC which read as under: " Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, and there is no agent empowered to accept service of…

BHANWARI DEVI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…s that a notice or requisition under the Act may be served on the 6 Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Alwar person therein named either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC). In CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh, 82 ITR 888(SC), the hon’ble court has discussed the Rule 17 of Order V of CPC which read as under: " Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, and there is no agent empowered to accept service of…

SHUAIB AHMED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 65(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7782/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ure as provided in Code of Civil Procedure. Here provisions of Order V Rules 17 to 20 of CPC are I.T.A. No. 7782/Del/2019 relevant. After taking notice of above statutory provisions, their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Ramendra Nath Ghosh v. CIT, 82 ITR 888, observed as under (as per head note): "The Inspector of Income-tax who had to serve notices under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, claimed to have served the notices by affixing them on the assessee's place of business but in his report did not mention the names and addresses of the persons who identified the place of business of the asse…

ROCKSALT INTERACTIVE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 263Section 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

…mained the same. He further submitted that no show- cause notice was properly served on the assessee and no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the assessee in tune with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramendra Ghosh 82 ITR 888 (SC). He further submitted that the order of Pr. CIT’s order u/s. 263 of the Act be set aside and allow the appeal of the assessee / restore the matter for verification of the filing of returns of income submitted for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 7 6. Learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of authorities below. 7. W…

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

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

ITA 286/JPR/2022[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 1986-87

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273(2)(b)Section 282

…s as mentioned in Rule 17 exist then only the penalty order and notice of demand may be served by affixture that too in the presence of witnesses by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. We rely- CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh; 82 ITR 888 (SC) (PB 58-60), relevant para 8-10; In this case, the service was affected by affixture by the Inspector of Income-tax but in his report, he did not mention the names and addresses of the person who identified the place of business of the assessee nor did he mention in his report or in the affidavit filed by him that he personally knew the place…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR, KANPUR vs. SHRI MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…s of the lender. In this background, this report filed by the Inspector cannot be relied upon as the valid material for coming to a conclusion that loan creditor is non-existent and for making this addition. 7.20 In Assessing Officer VS. Ramendra Nath Ghosh, 82 ITR 888 (SC), the Inspector of Income-tax, who was the service officer, claimed to have served the notice by affixing it on the assessee’s place of business, but in his report did not mention the names and addresses of the persons who identified the place of business of the assessee’s, nor did he mentioned in his report or in the affidavit filed by him th…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…particular person on any given address. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Hon'ble Supreme I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 11 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh 82 ITR 888 has held that the Income Tax Inspector, who was the service officer, claimed to have served the notice by affixing it on the assessee's place of business, but in his report did not mention the names and addresses of the persons who identified the place of business of the assessee's, nor did he mention in his report or in the affidavit filed by him…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3