Commissioner of Income Tax v. Umang Agarwal

Sri S V Srinivasa Babu vs. The Deputy Commissioner

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

…Shriram Investments v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2024) 301 Taxman 393 (SC), and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Umang Agarwal, (2014) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38654-DB ITA No. 27 of 2015 365 ITR 164 (All.), to contend that a return of income filed beyond the prescribed time is non est. However, this contention is sought to be raised in the appeal before the CIT(A), and to enable the CIT(A) to consider such contentions, the appellant must first overcome the requirements of sub-section (4) of Section 249 of the Act. As the order impugned…

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

…no prejudice had been caused to the assessee due to the fact, that the assessee was constantly present during the assessment proceedings. The ld. Sr. DR, in support of his arguments placed reliance on the following case laws:- i. CIT vs. Umang Agarwal, (2014) 365 ITR 164 ii. Smt. Parvati Devi vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 625 iii. Bhola Dutt In re (1981) 130 ITR 468 iv. PCIT vs. Broadway Shoe Company (2018) 259 taxman 223 J & K. 9. The ld. Sr. DR also submitted that the observations of the ITAT in the first round of appeal regarding cognizance of the letter dated 10.11.2008 were not called for, because the cognizance was…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises PVt. Ltd

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH