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#2803 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 367,181 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

M/S. Mico Steels (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. KC Singhal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234DSection 282(2)(b)

…procedure as laid down under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; under order V Rule 17 & 20 of the CPC, hence, the Service of Notice is illegal and void ab inito. Our view is fully supported by the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh 82 ITR 888 SC - the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “The contention of the assesses was that at the relevant time they had no place of business. The report of the serving office did not mention the names and addresses of the person who identified the place of business of the assesses. That officer did not mention in his report nor in the affidavit fil…

Jessop & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 702/kol/14 is allowed for statistical purpose, while ITA

ITA 702/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 702 & 1045/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Jessop & Co.. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-1, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6969 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

…otice on the assessee the natural conclusion that one has to draw is that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard by the revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ramendra nath Ghosh 82 ITR 888 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that in the absence of a valid service of show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act, order passed u/s 263 of the Act is liable to be quashed as illegal. 9. Without prejudice to the above submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no finding in the impugned order of the CIT th…