Delhi HC in CIT v. Mascomptel

345 ITR 58High Court2012#12663 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 292BB Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 292bb section 292b section 292 section 29 service of notice section 143(2)prescribed company section 143(3)india business person

Judgments citing Delhi HC in CIT v. Mascomptel

Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8767/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the above objections. Further he submitted that assessee has raised submissions before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…y prior to 30.09.2013. Submission-1 Notice u/s 143(2) shall be served on the latest ITR address mentioned by the Appellant Company. 1.10 This stand of the Assessee Company is corroborated by the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi HC in CIT vs Mascomptel [2012] 345 ITR 58 1.11 It is humbly submitted that once the latest address of the Assessee is in the knowledge of the AO then the AO was duty bound to serve the Notice Vis 143(2) on the latest address. In the present case it is amply clear that the AO is aware of my latest address as he himself has taken the email address from the impugned ITR, thus he cannot deny…

ITO, Ward- 24(3), New Delhi vs. Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8656/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mark Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6303/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271Section 7

…h Court that in the absence of notice being served, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make assessment and the absence of service of notice could not be held to be curable under section 292BB of the Act.” 2. Hon'ble Delhi Court Mascomptel India Ltd 345 ITR 58 “no attempt was made to serve the assessee on the correct address which was available with the department and in fact stated in the return of the income for the A.Y. 2006-07. Subsequent attempt to serve another notice long after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed by the proviso, could not help the Revenue.” 3. Hon'ble Delhi High Cour…

Digvijay Advisor Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad Up vs. ITO Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4540/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68Section 69C

…31.03.2015 is valid, he submitted that in view of the following decisions, such action of the Assessing Officer is illegal and vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. i. CIT V. RAMENDRA NATH GHOSH 82 ITR 888 (SC) ii. CIT V MASCOMPTEL INDIA LTD [2012] 345 ITR 58 (DELHI) iii. AVI -OIL INDIA P. LTD. V ADDL. CIT (2007) 18 SOT 219 (DEL-D) iv. SURENDER KUMAR PANDEY V ITO –ITA 179 & 2072/2017 ORDER DT. 29.03.19 (DEL – SMC) v. ARDENT STEEL LTD. V ACIT [2018] 94 TAXMANN.COM 95 (CHHATTISGARH) vi. CIT V ATLANTA CAPITAL (P) LTD. (DELHI) -- ITA NO. 665/2015 (DEL. HC) 6. The learned counsel for the assessee in hi…

Amoha Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Justice Shri P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Ms. Harkamal Sohi

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)

…ction 143(2) of the Act, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act pursuant to such notice was invalid and void ab initio. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mascomptel India Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 58 (Delhi), wherein on similar facts, it was held that 7 Amoha Traders Pvt. Ltd. when department was having the correctly stated address in the return of income, and no attempt was made to serve the notice under Section 143(2) on the correct address stated in the return of income, then the same cannot be held to be a valid service of notice. 5. As r…

Nilesh Kantilal Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Navi Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40A(3)

…nch and pointed out that notices were sent on the old address. The Ld. A.R. in defence of his argument relied on a series of decisions namely Suresh Kumar Sheetlani vs. Income Tax Officer (2018) 257 Taxman 338 (Allahabad), CIT vs. Mascomptel India Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 58 (Delhi) and Ashok B. Bafna vs. Dy. CIT (2012) 18 ITR (Trib.) 43 (Mumbai). The Ld. A.R. prayed before the Bench that in all these decisions the assessments were held to be not valid on account of non service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. 6 Mr. Nilesh Kantilal Solanki 8. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, prayed before the Bench that th…

Vidyavihar Containers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3Rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacn0291R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…nts: - 7 M/s. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. (i) CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (1971) 82 ITR 888 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Godavari Electrical Conductors (2015) 120 DTR (AP) 84 (iii) Arun Lal vs. ACIT (2010) 124 ITD 85 (Agra) (TM) (iv) CIT vs. Mascomptel India Ltd. (2013) 345 ITR 58 (Delhi) 4.1.9 It is submitted that as per the law laid down in this regard, service of notice by affixture must be preceded by adequate efforts by the Revenue to serve the notice on the assessee to be held as valid service of notice in terms of section 282(i) of the Act. The assessee argues that this is absolutely lacking in the case on hand, as t…

Lm Wind Power Blades (Indai) Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/BANG/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 80Section 80I

…f the Assessee to receive notices. According to him the burden of proof is on the income tax department to prove that there is a valid service of notice on the authorized person. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs Miscounted India Ltd. 345 ITR 58 & Hind Book House Vs Income Tax Officer 274 ITR (AT) 6l. According to him the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the service of notice u/s 148 of the Act is a condition precedent to making an assessment. Just because a notice u/s 143(2) r.w.s 147 was served on the Assessee it cannot be said that it is a valid service of notice u/s 148. The non-val…