CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad

280 ITR 541High Court2006#7100 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2569/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ess recorded in Income tax return and hence, the notice is not served upon the assessee validly was a violation of assessment procedure. On the issue, the ld. AR placed his reliance on various decisions as under: 1. CIT vs. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad [2006] 280 ITR 541 (All. HC) 2. Harsingar Gutkha Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 90 (All. HC) 3. CIT Vs. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. reported in (2017) 390 ITR 381 4. Y. Narayan Chetty vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC); 5. CIT vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Hotli…

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2568/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ess recorded in Income tax return and hence, the notice is not served upon the assessee validly was a violation of assessment procedure. On the issue, the ld. AR placed his reliance on various decisions as under: 1. CIT vs. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad [2006] 280 ITR 541 (All. HC) 2. Harsingar Gutkha Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 90 (All. HC) 3. CIT Vs. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. reported in (2017) 390 ITR 381 4. Y. Narayan Chetty vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC); 5. CIT vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Hotli…

SHRI SANJEEV PATNI,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Section 10Section 139Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 69

…le 17-20 of CPC. Our observations are also supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: Naveen Chande [2010] 323 ITR 49 (Punjab & Haryana); Kishan Chand [2010] 328 ITR 173 (PUNJ. & HAR); CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad[2006] 280 ITR 541/[2005] 147 Taxman 441; and RAM SINGH MATHUR [2007] 112 TTJ 989 (DELHI) (ITAT Delhi Bench). 10. We further find that this Tribunal vide order dated 20.5.2021 in the case of M/s. Swastik Coal Corporation P. Ltd., Indore in ITA No. for the A.Y. 477/Ind/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) has decided the identical issue of service of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJEEV PATNI, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Section 10Section 139Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 69

…le 17-20 of CPC. Our observations are also supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: Naveen Chande [2010] 323 ITR 49 (Punjab & Haryana); Kishan Chand [2010] 328 ITR 173 (PUNJ. & HAR); CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad[2006] 280 ITR 541/[2005] 147 Taxman 441; and RAM SINGH MATHUR [2007] 112 TTJ 989 (DELHI) (ITAT Delhi Bench). 10. We further find that this Tribunal vide order dated 20.5.2021 in the case of M/s. Swastik Coal Corporation P. Ltd., Indore in ITA No. for the A.Y. 477/Ind/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) has decided the identical issue of service of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. A…

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 168/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 Girirajkripa Developers Pvt. Ltd. cuke I.T.O., Vs. A 2PSM Complex Power House Ward-3(2), Road, Banipark, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCG 8973 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

VIKRANT TIWARI,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(6), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3578/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 151Section 50C

…tice u/s.148 has not been served in accordance with law then entire proceedings is void ab initio and in support he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad, (2006) 280 ITR 541 (Alld.) 6. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT (A) and submitted that in the 5 I.T.A. No.3758/DEL/2019 case of non PAN financial transaction, the address mentioned for sale deed or lease deed is considered to be the address. In any case, the matter can be restored back to the file of the Assessing Of…

SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

For Appellant: Shri Vikash ModiFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, vs. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. PAN – ACIPM 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue by: Smt. V. Aparna Date of hearing: 04/06/2019 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. This is an appeal of the assessee for the AY 2009-10 against the order of CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad, dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the…

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…under section 147 of the Act was not attended to, thus, the case of the appellant company would be covered by virtue of provisions contained in Section 292 BB of the Act, for which reliance could be placed on the decision in CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad 280 ITR 541 (All); CIT v. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All); P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 80 (Ker); Venad Properties (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 340 ITR 463 (Del) and Mayawati v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 349 (Del). 3.5 In view of these particular facts of the pr…

SHRI PRUTHVIRAJSINH ABHESINH THAKOR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1),, SURAT

In the result ground not 1 and 2 of this appeal are allowed

ITA 1631/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

…nt. In such circumstances defect in such notice was not curable and such notice was not valid. Appeal was decided in favour of assessee relying on the decision of Divisional Bench of High Court, Ahmedabad in case of CIT v/s. Shital Prasad kharag Prasad (2006) 280 ITR 541. 14. Similar issue also came up before Tribunal in the case of Rasidlal v/s ITO (Supra) wherein Hon'ble Court quashed the notice u/s.148 of the Act which was issued against dead person Hon'ble Court holding the issue in favour of the assessee observing as follows: 7. In the present case,, admittedly, the reassessment proceedings have been initiat…

SHRI PRUTHVIRAJSINH ABHESINH THAKOR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1),, SURAT

In the result ground not 1 and 2 of this appeal are allowed

ITA 1630/AHD/2017[2008-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2019AY 2008-19

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

…nt. In such circumstances defect in such notice was not curable and such notice was not valid. Appeal was decided in favour of assessee relying on the decision of Divisional Bench of High Court, Ahmedabad in case of CIT v/s. Shital Prasad kharag Prasad (2006) 280 ITR 541. 14. Similar issue also came up before Tribunal in the case of Rasidlal v/s ITO (Supra) wherein Hon'ble Court quashed the notice u/s.148 of the Act which was issued against dead person Hon'ble Court holding the issue in favour of the assessee observing as follows: 7. In the present case,, admittedly, the reassessment proceedings have been initiat…

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Toshniwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 50C

…ed by Section 292B of the Act, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Smt. Phoolmati Devi [144 ITR 954] (All); ii. PN Sasikumar and others Vs. CIT [170 ITR 80] (Ker); iii. CIT Vs. Shital Prasad Karag Prasad [280 ITR 541] (All); iv. CIT Vs. Norton Motors [275 ITR 595] (P&H) 4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below to submit that the department has taken steps to serve the notice on the assessee and since the notice was un-served, it was served by affixture at the address given by the assessees in their returns of income and the…

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 56/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Toshniwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 50C

…ed by Section 292B of the Act, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Smt. Phoolmati Devi [144 ITR 954] (All); ii. PN Sasikumar and others Vs. CIT [170 ITR 80] (Ker); iii. CIT Vs. Shital Prasad Karag Prasad [280 ITR 541] (All); iv. CIT Vs. Norton Motors [275 ITR 595] (P&H) 4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below to submit that the department has taken steps to serve the notice on the assessee and since the notice was un-served, it was served by affixture at the address given by the assessees in their returns of income and the…

LATE SHRI SHIV PRASHAD THROUGH L/H SHRI RAJ BAHADUR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 7405/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Sharma & Shri SanjayFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 159

…on precedent to re-initiate re- assessment proceedings and if notice issued is invalid, then the entire proceedings become illegal and void. This has been further reiterated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shital Prashad (2006) 280 ITR 541 (Alld.), wherein their Lordships have held as under: “It is fairly settled that an Assesing authority gets jurisdiction to re- open a concluded assessement only after serving a valid notice on the assesse. A notice contemplated u/s.148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice and not curable under section 292B of the Act, if it was not served in acc…

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

ITA 926/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ment passed under Section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act dt.29.12.2011 following inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.K.N. Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad (2006) 280 ITR 541, the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the case of Synopsis International Ltd. (supra) and Suez Tractabel SA (supra), and of the Agra Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO V Sikindar Lal Jain (45 SOT 113), etc; holding as under para 3.10 of the impugned order :- “ 3.10 The gist of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. CHETAN GUPTA

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

ITA/72/2014HC Delhi15 Sept 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…ITA No.72 of 2014 Page 1 of 24 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 9th September, 2015 Date of Decision: 15th September, 2015 + ITA 72 of 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate. versus CHETAN GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This ap…

RITZ THEATER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any

ITA/978/2010HC Delhi25 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 67(2)

…5 ITR 388 SC, Jindal Photo Films Ltd. V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (1998) 234 ITR 170 Delhi, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd., 296 ITR 333 Delhi, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shitalal Prasad Kharag Prasad, (2006) 280 ITR 541 (All), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sh. Ashok Kumar Bharti and Anr., (2006) 282 ITR 496, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Noah, (1958) 1 SCR 595, Koran Singh and ors. V. Chaman Paswan and ors., AIR 1954 SC 340, Rane Break Lining (supra) and Nanalal Tribhovandas and Anr. (supra). 15. Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned counsel for the revenue, i…