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

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

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

ITA 1786/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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.…

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM ITA No. 3556/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Bldg No.1, Room No.6, Income Tax Officer 1st Floor, Vaibhav C Wing, Ward 19(1)(1) Vs. Dedarkar Compound, Mumbai-400 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAPD8605N Assessee by : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR : Smt. Mahita Nair, DR Revenue by Date of hearing: 14.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No. 3556/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-…

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM ITA No. 3556/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Bldg No.1, Room No.6, Income Tax Officer 1st Floor, Vaibhav C Wing, Ward 19(1)(1) Vs. Dedarkar Compound, Mumbai-400 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAPD8605N Assessee by : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR : Smt. Mahita Nair, DR Revenue by Date of hearing: 14.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No. 3556/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Mahaveer Infoway Limited

In revival of another illegal order of promotion of appellant

ITTA/452/2011HC Telangana04 Apr 2012

Bench: Joint Director (Bal Rog), Medical Health & Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow (Hereinafter Referred To As “J.D.”) Stating That Some New Districts Have Been Created Wherein He Should Be Given Promotion As A Clerk Since He Has Passed Intermediate With Science & Knows Typing. Thereupon It Appears That A Letter Was Issued By J.D. On 20.12.1988 & Pursuant Thereto Chief Medical Officer Mau/Azamgarh (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cmo”) Passed Order On 14.03.1989 Promoting Petitioner On The Post Of Junior Clerk In The Scale Of Rs. 354-550 On Temporary Basis. Subsequently Order Of Promotion Was Cancelled Vide Order Dated 17.03.1989. Thereagainst Writ Petition Was Filed Which Has Been Dismissed By Learned Single

For Appellant: - Mahendra Nath SinghFor Respondent: - The Joint Director (Child Disease) and others

…1 AFR Court No. - 34 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 452 of 2011 Appellant :- Mahendra Nath Singh Respondent :- The Joint Director (Child Disease) and others Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra, A.N. Tripathi, R.P. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J. 1. Heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.P. Mishra, Advocate, for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment dated 02.02.2011 passed by learned Single…