Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT

171 ITR 381High Court1988#3996 most cited

What is Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT authority for?

Assessment proceedings are void ab initio if initiated by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction. This jurisdictional defect can be raised at any stage, even in collateral proceedings or during execution.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT · jurisdictional defect · void ab initio assessment · Section 148 notice · lack of jurisdiction · assessment nullity · collateral proceedings · Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan

Judgments citing Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Smt. Malti Agarwal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating materi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating materi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Shri Ajay Agarwal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1442/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating materi…

Geeta Nadkarni, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen 45, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3874/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ms. Geeta Nadkarni Vs. Asst. Cit Cen – 45 Flat No.102, Plot No.125 Mumbai Kalpataru Chs Ltd., Extn., Sixth Road Near Sthye College Vile Parle (E) Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Adfpn3602D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 54

…erit after giving due opportunity to the assessee. a. Jagbir Singh vs. ITO (1987) 23 ITD 15 . 4 Ms. Geeta Nadkarni b. Abhay Kumar Shroff vs. ITO (1997) 63 ITD 144 c. Jagannath Prasad Kanhaiya Lal Vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 596 d. Deep Chand Kothan vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 e. Controller of Estate Duty vs. Narasamma (1980) 125 ITR 196 6. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13/11/2017 (R.C.SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 13/11/2017 Karuna Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. The Respondent. 2. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. CIT 4.…

M/S. Sahdev Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2798/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

…question No. 3 is in the AYs: 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06 affirmative, that is to say, all the questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 8. Further, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381(Raj.) has taken a view that if the officer completed the assessment lacked jurisdiction, such plea can be raised even in second round of appeal. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Chand Kothari (Supra) held as under: "It is not in dispute that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer was duly challenged by the assessee before the…

M/S. Sahdev Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2797/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

…question No. 3 is in the AYs: 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06 affirmative, that is to say, all the questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 8. Further, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381(Raj.) has taken a view that if the officer completed the assessment lacked jurisdiction, such plea can be raised even in second round of appeal. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Chand Kothari (Supra) held as under: "It is not in dispute that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer was duly challenged by the assessee before the…

M/S. Sahdev Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2796/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

…question No. 3 is in the AYs: 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06 affirmative, that is to say, all the questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 8. Further, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381(Raj.) has taken a view that if the officer completed the assessment lacked jurisdiction, such plea can be raised even in second round of appeal. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Chand Kothari (Supra) held as under: "It is not in dispute that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer was duly challenged by the assessee before the…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 675/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Chavali S. Narayan, CA
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 80H

…ed profits deduction u/s.10A of the Act has to be allowed, thereby rendering tax implication on the Assessee insignificant. Therefore the prayer made in the application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules requires consideration. 17. In Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 171 ITR 381 (Rajasthan) & Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 119 CTR 161 (Raj.) following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Mahalskhmi Textile Mills Ltd. (Supra) held that respondent in an appeal has a right to support the order on any grounds decided against him. In the aforesaid decision, the Assessee a respondent had challenged the juri…

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)

…Mohd. Nooh, 1958 I SCR 595, P.V. Doshi v. CIT, 113 ITR 22, Rawatmal Harak Chand v. CIT, 125 ITR 346, CIT v. Rane Break Lining, 272 ITR 405, Pun Kunnam Traders v. Additional ITO, Kotayam, 83 ITR 508, Deep Chand Kothari v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) and CIT v. Avtar Singh, 304 ITR 333. 12. The tribunal distinguished the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and after placing reliance on CIT v. Sun Engineering, 198 ITR 297 came to hold that the CIT(A) could not have delved into the issue of limitation as the same was put to rest by him as well as by the tri…