Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT & Anr.

289 ITR 28High Court2007#8947 most cited

What is Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT & Anr. authority for?

Non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) in a block assessment proceeding is a jurisdictional error that cannot be cured, rendering the assessment void.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Bandana Gogoi · CIT · 2007 · 289 ITR 28 · Gauhati HC · Section 143(2) · Section 147 · reassessment · block assessment · mandatory notice · jurisdictional error

Judgments citing Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT & Anr.

DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

ITA 2914/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…held that as the notice under section 143(2) was not served within the stipulated period, the procedure under section 143 came to an end and the matter attained finality. Similarly is the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Smt. Bandana Gogol v. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 28 which also dealt with an issue of reassessment under section 147. That was a case of block assessment. If was found that notice under section 143(2) was not issued. The learned Bench came to the conclusion that requirement of section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with as it is mandatory. Parliament subsequently by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect f…

DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai

In the resultant proceedings cannot clothe it with legality

ITA 2913/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2007-08
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…held that as the notice under section 143(2) was not served within the stipulated period, the procedure under section 143 came to an end and the matter attained finality. Similarly is the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Smt. Bandana Gogol v. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 28 which also dealt with an issue of reassessment under section 147. That was a case of block assessment. If was found that notice under section 143(2) was not issued. The learned Bench came to the conclusion that requirement of section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with as it is mandatory. Parliament subsequently by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect f…

Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1206/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…arious other High Courts which were not in favour of view taken in CIT Vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (supra). The Tribunal decided the issue in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi Vs. CIT & Anr. (2007) 289 ITR 28 (Gau) in the absence of any other decision of any High Court in other State. In view of the above said position of law, we are departing from the view taken by Pune Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2010-11, wherein the order is dated 29.05.2015 but decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala on the issue is dat…

Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1205/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…arious other High Courts which were not in favour of view taken in CIT Vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (supra). The Tribunal decided the issue in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi Vs. CIT & Anr. (2007) 289 ITR 28 (Gau) in the absence of any other decision of any High Court in other State. In view of the above said position of law, we are departing from the view taken by Pune Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2010-11, wherein the order is dated 29.05.2015 but decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala on the issue is dat…

Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1204/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…arious other High Courts which were not in favour of view taken in CIT Vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (supra). The Tribunal decided the issue in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi Vs. CIT & Anr. (2007) 289 ITR 28 (Gau) in the absence of any other decision of any High Court in other State. In view of the above said position of law, we are departing from the view taken by Pune Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2010-11, wherein the order is dated 29.05.2015 but decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala on the issue is dat…

Sant Sopankaka Sahakari Bank Ltd., Saswad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 215/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Mayuri KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Houshang Boman Irani
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…arious other High Courts which were not in favour of view taken in CIT Vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (supra). The Tribunal decided the issue in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi Vs. CIT & Anr. (2007) 289 ITR 28 (Gau) in the absence of any other decision of any High Court in other State. In view of the above said position of law, we are departing from the view taken by Pune Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2010-11, wherein the order is dated 29.05.2015 but decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala on the issue is dat…

Shri Mahesh K. Dhirmalani, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT Cen RG, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1918/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1918 /Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Mahesh K. Dhirmalani Addl. Cit, Central Range, बनाम/ Flat No.1103 & 1104, Thane, Vs. Ascona, A- Wing, Income Tax Office, Raheja Garden, Pawar Compound, Charai Teen Hath Naka Thane (W) Thane (W) - 400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adkpd5616N

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S.Naik (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 50B

…wrong against law and facts. In support of this contention the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled by Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in 3 A.Y. 2002-03 Smt. Bandana Gogoi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2007) 289 ITR 28 (Gau). 5. However, on the other hand the learned representative of the department has refuted the said contention and argued that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is directory in nature and is not mandatory, therefore the assessment is not bad in law in view of the law settled in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Third Member in case of Smt. Sumanla…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt Ltd

The appeal stands disposed of

ITA/1159/2010HC Delhi06 Oct 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 143(2)Section 158Section 292Section 2g

…tice under Section 143(2) was never issued and if this bc so, the question frarned did not covcr the controversy existing in the case of the assessec. Iteliance was placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Bortdorto Gogoi vs. CIf [2007J 289 ITR 28 wherein it was held that the defect of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) in thc casc of block asscssmcnt cannot be cured and such assessmcnt suffers from both procedural as r,r'ell as jurisdictional error. It was also contended that in any cvent Section 2g2-IlB of the Act which was introduced r,vith effcct from l't April, 2008 cannot bc…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt Ltd

The appeal stands disposed of

ITA - 1161 / 2010HC Delhi06 Oct 2010
Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 158BSection 292

…t notice under Section 143(2) was never issued and if this be so, the question framed did not cover the controversy existing in the case of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Bandana Gogoi vs. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 28 wherein it was held that the defect of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) in the case of block assessment cannot be cured and such assessment suffers from both procedural as well as jurisdictional error. It was also contended that in any event Section 292-BB of the Act which was introduced with effect from 1st April, 2008 cannot be relied…

The Commissioner of Incomet Tax vs. Khatri Hotels Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1323 / 2008HC Delhi15 Apr 2009
Section 143Section 158

…of the act is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore null and void ab initio." - 3. Before the Tribunal, the assessees had pressed into service the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of <u>Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT:</u> 289 ITR 28. The question before the Gauhati High Court was as under:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the learned Tribunal is not erroneous in holding that non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not invalidate the assessment relating to the block period and was at best a mere…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pawan Gupta

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 200 / 2008HC Delhi15 Apr 2009
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 158

…THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:. 15.04.2009 + ITA.No.200/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant - versus - PAWAN GUPTA ...Respondent WITH ITA.No.1173/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant - versus - TULIKA MISHRA ...Respondent WITH ITA.No.1034/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant - versus - NAREASH KUMAR ARORA ...Respondent WITH ITA.No.916/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant - versus - ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. ...Respond…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pawan Gupta

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/200/2008HC Delhi15 Apr 2009
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 158

…THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:. 15.04.2009 + ITA.No.200/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant - versus - PAWAN GUPTA ...Respondent WITH ITA.No.1173/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant - versus - TULIKA MISHRA ...Respondent WITH ITA.No.1034/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant - versus - NAREASH KUMAR ARORA ...Respondent WITH ITA.No.916/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant - versus - ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. ...Respond…

Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT & Anr. (289 ITR 28) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax