Commr. of Agrl. IT v. Keshab Chandra Mandal

18 ITR 569Supreme Court of India1950#23868 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 282A

Judgments citing Commr. of Agrl. IT v. Keshab Chandra Mandal

ALI MOHAMMAD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5608/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5608/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Ali Mohammad Acit, Mohalla Kot Kachchi Saray, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Etopm2968E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

…ory requirement. It is 21 not merely a ministerial act, or an empty formality which can be dispensed with." (Emphasis supplied by us) 24. In the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal, 1950 SCR 435 : AIR 1950 SC 265 : (1950) 18 ITR 569 (para-17, 19 and 26), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "17. Then after stating that the Courts ought not to restrict the common law rule qui facit per alium facit per se, unless the statute makes a personal signature indispensable, and referring to certain decided cases, enunciated the proposition that when the word "sign" or "signature" is us…

SHRI MANAV KEJRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-49(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1342/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

…n it be saved by some other statutory provision? As a matter of fact, the aforesaid four probabilities have been drawn from the anomalous statutory and judicial delineations of the moot-point. In the case of Commr. of Agrl. IT vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal (1950) 18 ITR 569 (SC) : TC 9R. 617, the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down that return not signed or thumb marked by the illiterate assessee could not be treated as a properly signed and a valid return. In Waman Padmanabh Dande vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 339 (Nag) .' TC 9R 394, a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court had held that "where a return made is not in the pre…

SRI MANAB KEJRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-49(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.698/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Manab Kejriwal, Block-9, Flat Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.5H, 5Th Floor, Space Town Ward-49(2), Kolkata Housing Complex, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata-170052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Awjpk 1519 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Srivastava सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed (A.M.): The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Vide Memo No. Cit-Xvii/U/S263/2012-13/1154-1157 Dated 26-2-2014, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvii, (Cit For Short) Kolkata, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-2010, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That The Ld. C.I.T Erred In Passing The Order U/ S. 263 When The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration, The Issue Was Not Examined By The Ao , The Assessment Was Completed Which Itself Was Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Proceedings U/S. 263 Are Also Void-Ab Initio. 3. For That The Ld. C.I.T Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S. 263 When All The Issues Raised In The Show Cause Notice Had Been Considered & Categorically Spelt Out By The Ao In His Order Passed U/S. 144, Duly Examined By Him Since The Assessment Itself Was Taken Up For Scrutiny Only On The Basis Of The Air Information In Respect Of The Impugned Amounts. 4. For That The Ld. Cit Himself Should Have Decided The Issue, Call For The Records & Examined The Same When The Specific Issue Was Taken Up Before The Ld. Cit That The Appellant Did Not File Any Return.

For Appellant: Shri S.M.SuranaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srivastava
Section 139(1)Section 140Section 144Section 263

…n it be saved by some other statutory provision? As a matter of fact, the aforesaid four probabilities have been drawn from the anomalous statutory and judicial delineations of the moot-point. In the case of Commr. of Agrl. IT vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal (1950) 18 ITR 569 (SC) : TC 9R.617, the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down that return not signed or thumb marked by the illiterate assessee could not be treated as a properly signed and a valid return. In Waman Padmanabh Dande vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 339 (Nag) : TC 9R.394, a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court had held that "where a return made is not in the presc…