Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma

8 SCC 776Reported decision2006#2658 most cited

What is Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma authority for?

A procedural irregularity in an assessment or reassessment order, where the initiation of the proceeding was valid, does not necessarily render the order invalid if the irregularity is curable and amounts to a mere technicality.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India · P.D. Agrawal · curable irregularity · procedural defect · validity of order · natural justice · sections 147 · 148 · 153A · 153D · audi alteram partem · mere technicality

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 132Section 158BGSection 151

Issues it is cited on

section 136section 43(3)section 193section 196section 37bsection 255(4)section 114(e)section 158bgaudi alteram partemsection 271aab(1a)section 151(2)section 144ba

Judgments citing Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6215/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5631/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one.” Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5630/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. ITAs No.5624, 5625, 5626, 5627, 5628, 5629, 5630 & 5631-Mum-2024 8 Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala H…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5629/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. ITAs No.5624, 5625, 5626, 5627, 5628, 5629, 5630 & 5631-Mum-2024 8 Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala H…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5628/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5627/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5626/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5624/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. ITAs No.5624, 5625, 5626, 5627, 5628, 5629, 5630 & 5631-Mum-2024 8 Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala H…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8537/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8536/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8535/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8534/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8533/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1792/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1791/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1789/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…se Gauhati (2015) 8 SCC 519; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; P.D. Agrawal v. State of Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh. It was then submitted that where initiation was valid but completion was not correct, the order may not be invalid but only irregular because the intervening irregularity is a curable one. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Panicker (CGG) v. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 443 and CIT v. M.…