CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal

30 ITR 439High Court1956#14017 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 153(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 34 income-tax officer notice under section 148 reassessment proceedings section 139 section 69 section 143(2)section 13 section 148 transfer section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…taken by the Income-tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 IIR 54 (Bom) and R. K. Das and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 439 (Cal), and we think that that view is right." 5.2. He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC) wherein it has been held as under (page 164): "The High Court has quashed the notice by accepting the assessee's contention that the action of the Income-tax Off…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…taken by the Income-tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 IIR 54 (Bom) and R. K. Das and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 439 (Cal), and we think that that view is right." 5. 2. He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC) wherein it has been held as under (page 164): "The High Court has quashed the notice by accepting the assessee's contention that the action of the Income-tax Off…

DEEPAK GARG,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, KRNAL, HARYANA

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

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

…hout a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be llegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in Commissioner of Income- tax v Namsukh Molilal [1955] 27 ITR 54 and R.K. Das & Co. v Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 30 ITR 439 and we think that that view is right" CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC) 8. Ld. Counsel without prejudice to the above it is submitted that despite several requests to the Id. AO during the assessment proceedings to provide copy of the sanctioned form of recorded reasons to believe that income has escaped assessme…

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…(1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) iv) CIT Vs Kurban Hussain lbrahimji Mithi borwala (1971) 82ITR 821 (SC) 11 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO v) Vijay Kumar Jain Vs CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj) vi) CIT Vs Ramsukh Motilal (195) 27 ITR 54 (Bom) vii) R.K. Das & Co. Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 439 (Cal) viii) Tansukhrai Bodulal Vs ITO (1962) 46 ITR 325 (Assam-FB) ix) Sewlal Daga Vs CIT (1965) 55 ITR 406 (Cal) 3.8 It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CWT Vs.KundanLal Behari Lal (1975) 99 ITR 581 (SC) wherein it has been held that the word ‘issue’ meant ‘serve’ and thus a notice cannot be said to have been issued…

I.T.O., WARD-30(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PARTHA SARATHI MITRA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1624/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 29Section 292B

…1 Partha Sarathi Mitra, AY- 2003-04 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1624/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Income-tax Officer, Wd-30(3), Vs. Partha Sarathi Mitra. Kolkata (PAN: AEMPM0875M) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 11.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 20.06.2018 For the Appellant Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT For the Respondent Shri Soumitra Choudhury, advocate ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appea…

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SMT. GHATTY VENKATA RAJYA SESHA SRI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 39/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-4(1), Vs. Smt. Ghatty Venkata Rajya Visakhapatnam. Sesha Sri, D.No. 45-47-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aarpg 6268 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao – FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the validity of the proceedings taken by the ITO without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void – CIT vs. Ramsukh Mothilalal (1955) 27 ITR 54 and R.K. Das & Co. vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 439 approved; Y. Narayana Chetty & Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. (1954) 26 ITR 310 (Mad) : TC51R.1798 affirmed." The Hon'ble High Court of Assam in Tansukhrai Bodulal v. ITO (46 ITR 325 Gau FB) held that the jurisdiction upon the ITO to proceed to assess or reassess the income is conferred only after the notice has been, served, and that a valid notice is a fou…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VISION INC

The appeals of the Revenue are disposed of accordingly

ITA/1142/2009HC Delhi25 May 2012

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 68

…ice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsukh Motilal, (1955) 27 ITR 54 and R. K. Das & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1956) 30 ITR 439 and we think that that view is right.” It was therefore held by this Court and rightly, if we may say so with respect, that since there was no proper service of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the entire reassessment proceedings were invalid. Secondly, the notice was sent by speed post to an improper address, an address wh…