CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar

74 ITR 41Supreme Court of India1969#2957 most cited

What is CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar authority for?

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar · 74 ITR 41 SC · dismissal of appeal for default · dismissal without merits · first appellate authority · CIT(A) powers · ex parte dismissal · grounds on merits

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 144Section 147Section 115BBESection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 234DSection 35(1)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)(a)section 246a(1)(a)scientific research expendituresection 35(1)(i)section 2(43)depreciation on softwaresection 170business transfer agreementsection 35(1)section 40a(ia)r&d expenditureopening wdv

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar

Sh. Manjit Singh, Shahkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Phagwara

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA no

ITA 126/ASR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.126/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 144Section 250(6)

…nts available in records. The averments are self-serving and supportingwith substance. We fully relied on order of ITAT-Amritsar Bench, in the case of M.K.Hotels and Resorts Ltd. Keeping in view the judgment passed in the case of S. ChenniappaMudaliar[1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC), certainly the right to file appeal cannot be extinguished as the appellant would be left remedy less.Accordingly, 4 I.T.A. No.126/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 we allowed the condonation for delay of 1978 days and accepted the petition for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case is that assessee deposited cash amount toRs.45,54…

Omni Active Health Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 748/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 35Section 5Section 92C

…t being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building) on in-house research and development facility as approved by the prescribed authority. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents – CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar: [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC) and Anuj Bhagwati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: ITA NO.1844 & 1845/MUM/2022, dated 20/09/2022. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the 19. material on record. We find that the Tribunal has in the case of the Appellant, while deciding identical issue in favour of the Appellant in appeals preferred by the Appellant for…

Avadh Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2026/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 254(1)

…ombay High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. ITAT [2013] 359 ITR 371 (Bom) wherein after referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT 2 AY: 2012-13 Avadh Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. S. Cheniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC) held that that the mandate of Section 254(1) of the Act is to dispose off the appeal on the merit even in the absence of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Borah vs. ITAT [2008] 302 ITR 243 (Gau) interpreting the Rule 24 of the Income Tax app…

Gurcharan Singh Dhawan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2658/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ns, Anupama Singla, Senior DR
Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…ed by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Cheniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC) has held that dismissal of appeal for failure of appellant to appear is ultra vires. 4. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the appeals on merits of the case and pass order accordingly. 5. In the result…

Intergen Energy Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2419/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ns, Anupama Singla, Senior DR
Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…ed by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Cheniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC) has held that dismissal of appeal for failure of appellant to appear is ultra vires. 4. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the appeals on merits of the case and pass order accordingly. 5. In the result…

Ruchi Mahila Mandal, Chhatarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Chhatarpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/JAB/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139DSection 147Section 148(1)Section 194CSection 271BSection 44A

…appeal. 250. (6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. Cheniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC) held that even where the appellant does not appear on the date of hearing, appeal has to be decided on merits. 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) also states to have dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits. But his order is not a speaking order. He has dismissed the appeal by writing a few lines only in para 7 of the impugned order. His order ought to…

Shri Manoj Premchand Dharmani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 5856/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Manoj Premchand Dharmani, The Income Tax Officer 22(2)(3), Prop. Of M/S Drishti Trade House, Vashi Railway Station Complex, B-503, Swami Jairamdas Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 Shopping Centre, R.C. Marg, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aegpd3228P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vikash Kr Agarwal (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikash KR Agarwal (DR)
Section 143Section 197ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 80C

…ame has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Chennappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41 has held that dismissal of appeal for failure of appellant to appear is ultra vires. Assessment Year: 2010-11 7. Hence, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in contravention of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid judgments. We therefore, set aside the…

Shri Advesh Sangappa Ghaniger, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belgaum

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 307/PAN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Adavesh Sangappa Ghaniger, The Income Tax Officer, Mole Circle, Main Road, Ward – 1(3), At & Post: Ainapur – 591303 Belgaum Tal : Athani, Dist: Belgaum Vs. Pan: Amtpg4109R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Y.V. Raviraj (DR)
Section 143Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…ame has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Chennappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41 has held that dismissal of appeal for failure of appellant to appear is ultra vires. 7. Hence, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in contravention of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid judgments. We therefore, set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(…

M/S Gajalaxmi Transport, Belgavi vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 2, Belgavi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-2009

ITA 287/PAN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Gajalaxmi Transport, The Joint Commissioner Of #16, Sukh Sagar Complex, Income Tax, Range-2, Near Hotel Ramdev, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum District Belgaum Vs. Pan: Aagfg5192D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pravin B. Chinnannavar (CA)For Respondent: Shri Y.V. Raviraj (DR)
Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 269TSection 271E

…same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Chennappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41 has held that dismissal of appeal for failure of appellant to appear is ultra vires. Assessment Year: 2008-09 7. Hence, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in contravention of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid judgments. We therefore, set aside the…

Sh. Surinder Singh S/O Sh. Chanan Singh, Batala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Batala

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 430/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…, either confirming or reversing or modifying the findings by the first appellate authority. It is for this reason that section 250(6) of the Act contemplates a speaking order. Indeed as explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC), the tribunal is also not entitled to dispose an appeal before it other than on merits. Per contra, it is only where the appellant is not traceable, has left, etc., that the principle embodied in the dictum ‘Vigilantibus, Non Dormentibus, Jura Subveniunt’ would come into 4 Surinder Singh v. ITO play. We are conscious that no specific ground i…

Hitesh R. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3331/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Virag ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ms.Hemalatha

…A) to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws. (1) CIT v. T.A.Luthara HUF [(2016) 240 Taxman 133 (Bom.)] (2) CIT v. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)] 3. Accordingly in the interest of justice, I remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 2 ITA No.3331/Mum/2017. Shri Hitesh R Shah. 4. Learned Counsel…

Nisha Anand Sagar, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3261/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AlalFor Respondent: Shri Ms.Hemalatha

…) to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws. (1) CIT v. T.A.Luthara HUF [(2016) 240 Taxman 133 (Bom.)] (2) CIT v. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)] 3. Accordingly in the interest of justice, I remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) is directed to 2 ITA No.3261/Mum/2017. Smt.Nisha Anand Sagar. consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 4. Learned Counse…

Geeta K. Mandavia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1572/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar

…A.Luthara HUF 240 Taxman 133 has held that learned CIT(A) has no power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution. It is incumbent upon him to pass an order on merits of the case. Similarly the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)] has held that 2 ITA No.1572/Mum/2017. Ms.Geeta K.Mandavia the Appellate Tribunal cannot dismiss for default but has to give speaking order on merits. 4. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid precedents, the issue raised in this appeal are remitted to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking orde…

Sarah Infraprojects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1384/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

…s.Sarab Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. case and not summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. For this prosecution, I place reliance upon the following case laws :- (i) CIT v. T.A.Luthara HUF 240 Taxman 133 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)] 4. In view of the aforesaid precedents, in my considered opinion the issue raised in the appeal needs to be remitted to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) shall consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an proper opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand…

Sarah Infraprojects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1383/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

…s.Sarab Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. case and not summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. For this prosecution, I place reliance upon the following case laws :- (i) CIT v. T.A.Luthara HUF 240 Taxman 133 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)] 4. In view of the aforesaid precedents, in my considered opinion the issue raised in the appeal needs to be remitted to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) shall consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an proper opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand…

Glb Finvest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 20, Mumbai

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

ITA 3181/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sobit JainFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

…should not have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. For this proposition, we rely upon following case laws:- 2 ITA No.3181/Mum/2016. M/s.GLB Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (i) CIT v. T.A.Luthara HUF 240 Taxman 133 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)] 4. In view of the aforesaid precedents, in our considered opinion the issue raised in the appeal needs to be remitted to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) shall consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and accordingly pass an order on the merits of the case. 5. In the result, this appeal…

Haresh K. Parekh, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2044/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri. Ishwar Prakash RathiFor Respondent: Shri. Sumit Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…cumbent upon the learned CIT(A) to pass an order on merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. This proposition is supported by the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. P.A.Luthra HUF 240 Taxman 133 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar 74 ITR 41 (SC) 4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, I set aside the issue to the file of learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue on merits and pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 2 Shri Haresh K. Parekh 5. Learned Counsel of the assessee has agreed to suo-moto appear…

Devang C. Goradia, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 20(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1270/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Ms.Heena ShethFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju

…A.Luthara HUF 240 Taxman 133 has held that learned CIT(A) has no power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution. It is incumbent upon him to pass an order on merits of the case. Similarly the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)] has held that 2 ITA No.1270/Mum/2017. Shri Devang C.Goradia the Appellate Tribunal cannot dismiss for default but has to give speaking order on merits. 4. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid precedents, the issue raised in this appeal are remitted to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking or…

Pranav H Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1064/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Ms.Keyuri DesaiFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju

…A.Luthara HUF 240 Taxman 133 has held that learned CIT(A) has no power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution. It is incumbent upon him to pass an order on merits of the case. Similarly the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)] has held that 2 ITA No.1064/Mum/2017. Shri Pranav H.Vora the Appellate Tribunal cannot dismiss for default but has to give speaking order on merits. 4. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid precedents, the issue raised in this appeal are remitted to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…yderabad Asbestos Cement products Ltd, 172 ITR 762(AP) wherein the Hon’ble Court at page No.775 & 776 has observed as under: “Learned Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969), 74 ITR 41. Relying on this decision, learned counsel represented that if the notification should be held to be inconsistent in any manner, it should 65 M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., given way to the statutory provisions contained in section 36(1)(iv) of the Act and, therefore, it is not strictly necessary for this court to strike down conditions Nos. 2 and…