Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT

97 ITR 701High Court1974#5625 most cited

What is Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT authority for?

The Revenue bears the burden of proving that a notice was duly served on the assessee or their authorized representative. If no valid notice is served within the prescribed period, the Income-Tax Officer lacks the authority to initiate reassessment proceedings.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT · service of notice · burden of proof · Revenue · assessee · authorized representative · reassessment proceedings · section 148 · section 34 · 1922 Act

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI 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…