CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi

66 ITR 147Supreme Court of India1967#3712 most cited

What is CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi authority for?

Improper service of notice invalidates the entire reassessment proceedings. If no notice is served within the prescribed period, the Income-tax Officer is incompetent to commence reassessment proceedings.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi · reassessment notice · invalid proceedings · section 34 1922 Act · service of notice · period of limitation · incompetence to commence proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 127(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 282(1)section 148(1)section 2(7a)section 292bbsection 282section 292bsection 124section 120section 292section 29service of noticesection 44ad

Judgments citing CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi

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

…ice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer would be illegal and void. (ii) The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT Kerala Vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Deceased) [66 ITR 147] (SC), wherein it was held that – the service of the notice prescribed by Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of commencing proceedings for reassessment is not a mere procedural requirement: it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings for assessment under section 34 of the Act. (iii) The decision of Hon'…

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

…presentative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax [1974] ITA No.72 of 2014 Page 16 of 24 97 ITR 701 (Ori) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC), the Respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the process server had was that the Respondent was either in Bombay or Ceylon. Thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on the business premises of the Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the essential principle that "if no notice was serve…

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

…ce is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer would be illegal and void. (ii) The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT Kerala Vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Deceased) [66 ITR 147] (SC), wherein it was held that – the service of the notice prescribed by Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of commencing proceedings for reassessment is not a mere procedural requirement: it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings for assessment under section 34 of the Act. (iii) The decision of Hon…

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

…ce is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer would be illegal and void. (ii) The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT Kerala Vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Deceased) [66 ITR 147] (SC), wherein it was held that – the service of the notice prescribed by Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of commencing proceedings for reassessment is not a mere procedural requirement: it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings for assessment under section 34 of the Act. (iii) The decision of Hon…

Rajdhani Realcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 21(1), New Delhi

ITA 1146/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 Rajdhani Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 2612/13, 2Nd Floor, Ward-21(1), Naya Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadrc3963P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate & Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…sessee or his duly authorized representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Ori) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC), the Respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the process server had was that the Respondent was either in Bombay or Ceylon. Thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on the business premises of the Respondent. The Supreme 5 Court affirmed the essential principle that "if no notice was se…

I.T.O., Ward-30(3), 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

…f the case, we note that sec. 148 notice has not been served upon the assessee which fact could not be controverted by the revenue before us. 5. In the similar circumstances, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147, 150, 151 held that- “Service of the notice under section 148 after issuing the same within the period of limitation prescribed under section 149 being a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction, if the Assessing Officer was unable to prove that the notice was duly served upon the assessee after issuing the same within the prescribed…

Smt. Nalini Shyam Moundekar, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed as above

ITA 516/NAG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 144Section 148Section 5

…. Therefore, the appellant has challenged the consequential order passed u/s 144 by way of making additions as bad in law. The assessee has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Tayab Ali Mulla Jivaji Kapasi reported in 66 ITR 147 (SC). The A.R. of the appellant has also referred to the provisions of Sec. 282 of the IT Act, 1961. The contention of the AR is that notice u/s 148 has not been served by post. Further, the AR states “provision for service of summon issued by Court under the Code of Civil Procedure are provided in order V of Civil Procedure Code. The aforesaid pr…

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

…lude Fatechand Agarwal v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax [1974] 2015:DHC:7656-DB ITA No.72 of 2014 Page 16 of 24 97 ITR 701 (Ori) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC), the Respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the process server had was that the Respondent was either in Bombay or Ceylon. Thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on the business premises of the Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the essential principle that “if no notice was…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Three Dee Exim Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1604 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…a notice was bad in law. In this context, he has relied upon the judgments of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163 (SC), CIT v. Mintu Kalia, 253 ITR 334 (Gau), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.), 66 ITR 147 (SC), CIT v. Harish J Punjabi 297 ITR 424 (Del), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 311 ITR 235 (Del), P. N. Sasikumar v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker), CIT v. Mani Kakar 18 DTR 145 and an order of this court in CIT v. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. ITA No. 1171 of 2008 dated 31-08-2009. 9. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court t…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Three Exim Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1778 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…a notice was bad in law. In this context, he has relied upon the judgments of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163 (SC), CIT v. Mintu Kalia, 253 ITR 334 (Gau), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.), 66 ITR 147 (SC), CIT v. Harish J Punjabi 297 ITR 424 (Del), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 311 ITR 235 (Del), P. N. Sasikumar v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker), CIT v. Mani Kakar 18 DTR 145 and an order of this court in CIT v. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. ITA No. 1171 of 2008 dated 31-08-2009. 9. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI vs. Three Dee Exim Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1778/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…a notice was bad in law. In this context, he has relied upon the judgments of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163 (SC), CIT v. Mintu Kalia, 253 ITR 334 (Gau), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.), 66 ITR 147 (SC), CIT v. Harish J Punjabi 297 ITR 424 (Del), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 311 ITR 235 (Del), P. N. Sasikumar v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker), CIT v. Mani Kakar 18 DTR 145 and an order of this court in CIT v. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. ITA No. 1171 of 2008 dated 31-08-2009. 9. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI vs. Three Dee Exim Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1604/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…a notice was bad in law. In this context, he has relied upon the judgments of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163 (SC), CIT v. Mintu Kalia, 253 ITR 334 (Gau), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.), 66 ITR 147 (SC), CIT v. Harish J Punjabi 297 ITR 424 (Del), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 311 ITR 235 (Del), P. N. Sasikumar v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker), CIT v. Mani Kakar 18 DTR 145 and an order of this court in CIT v. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. ITA No. 1171 of 2008 dated 31-08-2009. 9. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court t…