Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT

97 ITR 701High Court1974#5729 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also reported as

107 Taxmann 391

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 292bbsection 282section 292bsection 292section 34section 29section 149service of noticeincome-tax officerreason to believeescapement of income

Judgments citing Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…ce of notice There is sufficient judicial authority for the proposition that the burden of showing that service of notice has been effected on the assessee or his duly authorised representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Orissa) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391 (Mad); [2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.) [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC), the respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the proc. ess server had was that the respondent was either in Bombay or Cey. lon. There…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…ice of notice There is sufficient judicial authority for the proposition that the burden of showing that service of notice has been effected on the assessee or his duly authorised representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Orissa) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391 (Mad); [2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.) [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC), the respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the proc. ess server had was that the respondent was either in Bombay or Cey. lon. There…

SHILPABEN NILESHBHAI GAMI,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Shilpaben Nieshbhai Gami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Omkarnagar Society, Ward 3(1)(5), Near Jalaram Temple, Bardoli- Surat 394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp 8678 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 31/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ner. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner's appeals are not barred by limitation but are well within the period of limitation prescribed therefor. This view of ours gains support from the decision of the Orissa High Court in Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701, wherein it was held that it is the duty of the revenue to establish that the service of an order or notice was made on the assessee himself or on somebody duly authorised by him to receive such notice. In the instant case, we have already held that Sri Subba Rao was not authorised to receive the same. We may notice here a decision of the Allahaba…

BIHARI CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. ITO(E), WARD GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3032/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 34

…fficient judicial authority for the proposition that the burden of showing that service of noticed has been effected on the Assessee 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 not…

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…nks Ltd. 107 TTJ 149 (JAB)(TM) CIT vs. Hotline International (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del) vii. CIT vs. Laxmi Narain 168 Taxman 128 (P&H) (HC) viii. Ram Singh Mathur vs. ITO, ITA 834/2005, date of order 21.09.2007 (Delhi ITAT) ix. Venkat Naicken & Anr. vs. ITO, 242 ITR 141 (Madras High Court) p] That on identical facts the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s Ashok Kumar Bharti and Vijay Kumar 198 CTR ALL 260 after considering the principle laid down by various Hon’ble Courts held that:- “ 14. In view of the above principle of law laid down by the various Courts, it is settled that the notice under…

NAVEEN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 2089/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2089/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Naveen Tyagi Ito C/O M/S Sanjeev Anand & Vs. Ward 1(2), Associates, 77, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Admpt7873K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…49 (JAB)(TM) • CIT vs. Hotline International (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del) I.T.A.No.2089/Del/2018 • CIT vs. Laxmi Narain 168 Taxman 128 (P&H) (HC) • Ram Singh Mathur vs. ITO, ITA 834/2005, date of order 21.09.2007 (Delhi ITAT) • Venkat Naicken & Anr. vs. ITO, 242 ITR 141 (Madras High Court) The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench, SMC in the case of Akhtar Khan Vs. ITO, ITA No. 138/Del/2008 dated 27.04.2022. 7. The Ld. DR at the time of hearing produced the original records before me and fairly submits that the proof of service of notice u/s 148 is not traceable from the record. 8…

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ny notice u/s 148 of the Act having ever been served on the assessee the impugned assessment is void and liable to quashed as such. 3.9 It is submitted that, it has been also held by the Madras High Court in the case of Venkat Naicken Trust v ITO reported at 242 ITR 141, 143 that, when the assessee pleads that he has not been properly served with any notice it is for the department to place the relevant material to substantiate their plea that the assessee was served with proper notice. The Mysore High Court in the case of C.N. Nataraj Vs. Fifth ITO 56 ITR 250 has further held that a notice prescribed under sect…

SHRI RAMDEV MANDHANI, HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 19/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ramdev Mandhani Huf, Income Tax Officer-3(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-295, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Vs. Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr 5208 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R.B. Doshi, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 29.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 21.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 29.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAIPUR” BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 19/RPR/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ramdev Mandhani HUF, Income Tax Officer-3(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-295, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Vs. Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAGHR 5208 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R.B. Doshi, AR अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर…

KAMLESH JAIN & SONS HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…provision of section 263 itself and is a mandatory requirement. Reliance was placed on the decisions of : - Smt. Shardaben B. Patel vs. Pr. CIT (2020), 180 ITD 328 (Ahd.) - CIT vs. Amitab Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) - Venkat Naicken Trust vs. ITO (2000) 242 ITR 141 (Mad) 8. To expound the factual position, it was also pointed out that notice dated 10.03.2021 calling for hearing on 15.03.2021 was eventually signed by the PCIT on 15.03.2021 i.e. on the date of hearing fixed in this regard. Interestingly, notice was signed at 1.49 P.M. whereas the hearing was fixed on the same date at earlier point of time i.…

J.K.V.B. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit

For Appellant: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f notice 34. There is sufficient judicial authority for the proposition that the burden of showing that service of noticed has been effected on the Assessee or his duly authorized representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Ori.) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391/[2000] 242 ITR 141 (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 se…

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…f notice 34. There is sufficient judicial authority for the proposition that the burden of showing that service of noticed has been effected on the Assessee or his duly authorized representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Ori.) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391/[2000] 242 ITR 141 (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 se…

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

…the proposition that the burden of showing that service of noticed has been effected on the Assessee or his duly authorized representative 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 not…

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

…ufficient judicial authority for the proposition that the burden of showing that service of noticed has been effected on the Assessee 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 not…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…iation of proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya versus Shanabhai P. Patel, [1987] 166 ITR 163(SC). Madras High Court in Venkat Naicken Trust and Another versus Income Tax Officer and Another, [2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad.) has held that when an assessee pleads that he had not been served with notice, it was for the department to place relevant material to substantiate and prove that the assessee was served. Reliance was placed on the affidavit by Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal that neither he, any of the directors nor an authorised person had received notice dated…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LIMITED

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…iation of proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya versus Shanabhai P. Patel, [1987] 166 ITR 163(SC). Madras High Court in Venkat Naicken Trust and Another versus Income Tax Officer and Another, [2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad.) has held that when an assessee pleads that he had not been served with notice, it was for the department to place relevant material to substantiate and prove that the assessee was served. Reliance was placed on the affidavit by Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal that neither he, any of the directors nor an authorised person had received notice dated…

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

…1 ITA Nos. 516,517&518/Nag/2014. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. Nos. 516, 517 & 518/Nag/2014. Assessment Year : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06. Late Shri Shyam Anand Moundekar, The Income-tax Officer, L/H Smt. Nalini Shyam Moundekar, Vs. Ward-4(1), Nagpur. Nagpur. PAN AICPM6255D. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri K.P. Dewani. Respondent by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Date of Hearing : 23-03-2017. Date of Pronouncement : 27th March, 2017. O R D E R. PER BENCH: At the outset we note that there is…

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

…ng that service of noticed has been effected on the Assessee or his duly authorized representative is on the Revenue. These include 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 th…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT LTD

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

…rpose was to be served by asking the petitioner to undertake the said exercise. So, that case is also absolutely distinguishable from the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the cases of Fateh Chand Agarwal v. CWT, 97 ITR 701 (Orissa); B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K) and R.L. Narang v. CIT, 136 ITR 108 (Del). All these cases relate to service of notice on persons, not authorised by of the assessee. That being not the position in the present case, these cases are not applicable. 2011:DHC:1792-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THREE EXIM PVT LTD

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

…rpose was to be served by asking the petitioner to undertake the said exercise. So, that case is also absolutely distinguishable from the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the cases of Fateh Chand Agarwal v. CWT, 97 ITR 701 (Orissa); B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K) and R.L. Narang v. CIT, 136 ITR 108 (Del). All these cases relate to service of notice on persons, not authorised by of the assessee. That being not the position in the present case, these cases are not applicable. 2011:DHC:1793-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010…

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

…rpose was to be served by asking the petitioner to undertake the said exercise. So, that case is also absolutely distinguishable from the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the cases of Fateh Chand Agarwal v. CWT, 97 ITR 701 (Orissa); B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT, 107 ITR 409 (J&K) and R.L. Narang v. CIT, 136 ITR 108 (Del). All these cases relate to service of notice on persons, not authorised by of the assessee. That being not the position in the present case, these cases are not applicable. 2011:DHC:1793-DB ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2