Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer

40 ITR 298Supreme Court of India1960#1509 most cited

What is Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer authority for?

An illegality occurring after assessment proceedings have been lawfully initiated does not nullify the entire proceedings; instead, the proceedings are restored to the stage where the illegality occurred.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Guduthur Bros v. Income-Tax Officer · 40 ITR 298 · SC · illegality in proceedings · nullity of assessment · restoration of proceedings · section 274(2) · JCIT approval

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 153CSection 144ASection 40A(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)section 153(a)section 255(4)section 144asection 144ba

Judgments citing Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 36/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…(2) did not mean inherent lack of jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer so as to render his order ab initio void but to decide the matter afresh after obtaining the JCIT’s approval. Learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on the case laws in 40 ITR 298 (SC) Guduthur Bros vs. Income Tax Officer, 180 ITR 84 (MP) Prabhudayal Amichand vs. CIT and 222 ITR 401 (MP) CIT vs. Damodaras Murari Lal for the proposition that the irregularity supervened not at the initial stage, but at a later stage of the proceedings would not lead to nullity. Learned Departmental Representatives further placed reliance on t…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…(2) did not mean inherent lack of jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer so as to render his order ab initio void but to decide the matter afresh after obtaining the JCIT’s approval. Learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on the case laws in 40 ITR 298 (SC) Guduthur Bros vs. Income Tax Officer, 180 ITR 84 (MP) Prabhudayal Amichand vs. CIT and 222 ITR 401 (MP) CIT vs. Damodaras Murari Lal for the proposition that the irregularity supervened not at the initial stage, but at a later stage of the proceedings would not lead to nullity. Learned Departmental Representatives further placed reliance on t…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/ALLD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…(2) did not mean inherent lack of jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer so as to render his order ab initio void but to decide the matter afresh after obtaining the JCIT’s approval. Learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on the case laws in 40 ITR 298 (SC) Guduthur Bros vs. Income Tax Officer, 180 ITR 84 (MP) Prabhudayal Amichand vs. CIT and 222 ITR 401 (MP) CIT vs. Damodaras Murari Lal for the proposition that the irregularity supervened not at the initial stage, but at a later stage of the proceedings would not lead to nullity. Learned Departmental Representatives further placed reliance on t…

Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 337/ALLD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…(2) did not mean inherent lack of jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer so as to render his order ab initio void but to decide the matter afresh after obtaining the JCIT’s approval. Learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on the case laws in 40 ITR 298 (SC) Guduthur Bros vs. Income Tax Officer, 180 ITR 84 (MP) Prabhudayal Amichand vs. CIT and 222 ITR 401 (MP) CIT vs. Damodaras Murari Lal for the proposition that the irregularity supervened not at the initial stage, but at a later stage of the proceedings would not lead to nullity. Learned Departmental Representatives further placed reliance on t…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad vs. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1555/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1555/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit Vs. Shri Vedula Venkata Circle 9 (1) Ramana, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abhpv1213E (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2025 & 18/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

…ccount. The learned DR has referred to the CBDT Circulars Nos.20/2015 and No.5/2016 as well as instructions dated 30/11/2017. He has also relied upon the following judgments: A) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guduthur Bros vs. Income Tax Officer (1960) 40 ITR 298 B) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors vs. M/s. Subhash & Co.,(AIR 2003 S.C 1628, 2003 (3) Page 4 of 11 ITA No 1555 of 2017 VedITA No 1555 of 2017 Vedula Venkata Ramana C) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NFAC & Ors vs. Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd in civil appeal No.1829 of 2023 dated 21st Mach, 2023 D)…

S.A.Propcon P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6370/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.6369/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 148

…ion. It is settled position of law that if any illegality supervened during the course of proceedings and not at the initial stage, then, clock will start from that point where such illegality occurred as held by the Apex Court in Gududhar Brothers repored in 40 ITR 298(SC). Therefore, in our view the proceedings would start again from the date when the assessee has filed its objection before the AO that is 08.11.2016. It is made clear that AO will dispose-off the objections and passed the final order within such period of limitation which was available with him originally. It is further directed to the Assessing…

S.A.Propcon P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6369/DEL/2018[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.6369/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 148

…ion. It is settled position of law that if any illegality supervened during the course of proceedings and not at the initial stage, then, clock will start from that point where such illegality occurred as held by the Apex Court in Gududhar Brothers repored in 40 ITR 298(SC). Therefore, in our view the proceedings would start again from the date when the assessee has filed its objection before the AO that is 08.11.2016. It is made clear that AO will dispose-off the objections and passed the final order within such period of limitation which was available with him originally. It is further directed to the Assessing…

S.A. Propcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5619/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.6369/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 148

…ion. It is settled position of law that if any illegality supervened during the course of proceedings and not at the initial stage, then, clock will start from that point where such illegality occurred as held by the Apex Court in Gududhar Brothers repored in 40 ITR 298(SC). Therefore, in our view the proceedings would start again from the date when the assessee has filed its objection before the AO that is 08.11.2016. It is made clear that AO will dispose-off the objections and passed the final order within such period of limitation which was available with him originally. It is further directed to the Assessing…

S.A. Propcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5618/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.6369/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 148

…ion. It is settled position of law that if any illegality supervened during the course of proceedings and not at the initial stage, then, clock will start from that point where such illegality occurred as held by the Apex Court in Gududhar Brothers repored in 40 ITR 298(SC). Therefore, in our view the proceedings would start again from the date when the assessee has filed its objection before the AO that is 08.11.2016. It is made clear that AO will dispose-off the objections and passed the final order within such period of limitation which was available with him originally. It is further directed to the Assessing…

Mahavir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), New Delhi

ITA 8602/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singhla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…atna High Court in Mahalliram Ramniranjan Das vs. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 885, wherein the decision of Delhi High Court in Kanji Mai & Son's case (supra) was referred to. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Guduthur Bros. vs. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC), and the matter was remanded to the authority to continue with the proceedings from the stage irregularity had occurred. It was observed that the tribunal was not right in annulling the assessment. It would be also appropriate here to refer to the decision in Hindustan Transport Co. vs. Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (1…

Mrs. Hema Ramnath, Kochi vs. DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/COCH/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmihema Ramnath Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) 35/2968, Laxmi Villa Ernakulam 682018 Church Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi - 682025 [Pan:Aavpr8682G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…CIT(A). This is clearly an irregularity, and the matter shall necessarily have to travel to the stage where the 3 | P a g e Hema Ramnath v. Dy. CIT irregularity had intervened (viz. ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi [2011] 334 ITR 262 (SC); Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC)). The matter, accordingly, goes back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the purpose. In fact, we also observe that both, i.e., the finding by the AO and that by the ld. CIT(A), modifying the former, are without statement of any reason/s informing the same and, thus, not sustainable on that ground alone inasmuch as they do not satisfy the test…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…he effect that due opportunity to explain his case would imply waiver of irregularity, as in C.G.G.Panicker v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 443 (Ker.) and CIT v. N.Krishnan [1999] 235 ITR 386 (Ker), rendered, drawing on the law explained in Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC). Principles of natural justice, after all, cannot be imprisoned in any strait jacket or rigid formula, as is well-settled, for which we may advert to K. L. Tripathi v. SBI, AIR 1984 SC 273, itself rendered w.r.t. judicial precedents. Continuing further, the argument is predicated on a false premise, i.e., that the two limbs of s. 271(1)(c) co…

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…assessee, would make the proceedings irregular, with it being trite law that proceedings in such a case shall revert to the stage where the irregularity had intervened (Suptd., Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231(SC); Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC)). There is no question even in such case of penalty being without jurisdiction, even as in the facts of a case, a 6 ITANo. 885/Coch/2022 (AY: 2017-18) Harikuttan T. vs. ITO case for remand could be made with some justification to the AO to allow the assessee to state his case, which may be different with reference to different clauses. 3.6…

The ACIT Corporate, Cochin vs. M/S.Kera Fibertex International P. Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 361/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

…absence of any prejudice being caused; the AO, being even otherwise incompetent to, having admittedly not carried out any changes to the draft. And, accordingly, proceedings restored to the stage where the irregularity intervened (Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC))or, considering he being powerless to review his order, so that the same is to be in any case adopted as such in view of no objection/s having been raised, the same deemed as the assessment order, i.e., at the end of the defined period for raising objections by the assessee with the DRP. Or, the AO having not followed the prescribed procedure…

M/S.Kera Fibertex International P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 311/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

…absence of any prejudice being caused; the AO, being even otherwise incompetent to, having admittedly not carried out any changes to the draft. And, accordingly, proceedings restored to the stage where the irregularity intervened (Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC))or, considering he being powerless to review his order, so that the same is to be in any case adopted as such in view of no objection/s having been raised, the same deemed as the assessment order, i.e., at the end of the defined period for raising objections by the assessee with the DRP. Or, the AO having not followed the prescribed procedure…

P R Sudeep, Alathur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Aroraand Shri Manomohan Dasp.R. Sudeep Dy. Cit, Parakkal Bharath Gas Agencies Central Circle Bank Road, Alathur Vs. Thrissur Palakkad 678541 [Pan:Axsps7870B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’)For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Levied Per Order Dated 28.6.2017, In First Appeal By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [Cit(A)], Vide His Order Dated 01.01.2021. 2. The Assessee’S Case Before Us & The Only One At That, Was That The Penalty Is Not Maintainable As Its Initiation, Upon Expressing Satisfaction In Its Respect In The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016, By Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S. 274 Of Even Date, Is Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Is Qua Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), No Longer Applicable For Search Cases, I.E.,01/7/2007 Onwards & Not As U/S. 271Aab Of The Act, Where The Search Is Initiated On Or After 01/7/2012 & For Which We Were Taken By Sh. Venkitaraman, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Through Sections 271 And271Aab Of The Act, As Well As The Impugned Notice (Pb Pg. 24).

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 292B

…urts time and again, proceedings become irregular only when prejudice is caused, and where so, the proceedings are liable to be restored to the stage where an irregularity intervenes (Suptd. CE v.Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC);Guduthur Bros. vs. ITO[1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC)). Reference be also made to T.A. Abdul Khader vs. CWT [2008]296 ITR 20 (Ker), where the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, with reference to sec.42C of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (corresponding to s. 292B of the Act), found no prejudice caused in view of the hearing granted, as obtains in the instant case. 3.4 Shri Venkitaraman would next subm…

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…, the argument is a non-starter. Why, even in case of established non-grant of opportunity, the proceedings would go to the stage where the said irregularity intervened (Suptd. Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC); Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC)). On merits, the argument that the exact default, i.e., concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, becomes largely irrelevant in the given facts and circumstances of the case where, as afore- noted, the income assessed is per the statutory mandate. There is no charge of unreported turnover, and the ad…

M/S Mata Road Carriers, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Jain writ petition Civil 11844/23-04-2011 Delhi HC page 95 To 111. 5. Hindustan Transport CO. vs IAC and Anr 1991) 189 ITR 326 Allhabad High Court Page 112 to 120. 6. Kimtee Vs CIT(1985) 151 ITR 73 MP high court Page 121 to 123. 7. Guduthur bros vs ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC) Page 124 to 127. 8. Ashish Agrwal vs UOI (2022) 138 taxman com 64 SC page 128 to 141. 9. Harish kumar Chhabad , ITA 323/RPR/2016 ,ITAT Raipur bench Page 142 to 162. 10. Goyal Construction Co ITA 17/ RPR/ 2017 ITAT Raipur bench Page 163 to 198 11. ITO ward -1(4) Vs C, Krishnan (2014) 52 taxman Com 30Madras Highcourt. Page 199 to 209; 12. Kerla…

Sri. Annesh, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmangalur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 124Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 234

…Patna High Court in MahalliramRamniranjan Das vs. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 885, wherein the decision of Delhi High Court in Kanji Mal & Son's case (supra) was referred to. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Guduthur Bros. vs. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC), and the matter was remanded to the authority to continue with the proceedings from the stage irregularity had occurred. It was observed that the tribunal was not right in annulling the assessment. It would be also appropriate here to refer to the decision in Hindustan Transport Co. vs. Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (1…

Namrata Kapale, Chindwara vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148(1)Section 159(2)(b)Section 263

…which though would not make it invalid for that reason and, besides, is saved by s. 292B. 4.4 The foregoing explains our decision in non-acceptance of the assessee‟s case. We may, before parting, also advert to the decision in Guduthur Brothers v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC), wherein the Apex Court per it‟s larger Bench decision explained that where a notice remained undisposed, it did not cease to be operative, and the AO had the jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage where the illegality had occurred. 4.5 The assessee‟s next legal challenge before us was that as the notice u/s. 143(2) was for…