Gurmuh Singh v. CIT

102 ITR 336Reported decision#9496 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 142(3)section 106third party informationsection 114preponderance of probabilitylegal representativelive linkbest judgment assessmentsection 44aentry operatorsection 145(3)section 44ab

Judgments citing Gurmuh Singh v. CIT

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 22/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…lant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464 - 488 - Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mist…

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…lant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464 - 488 - Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mist…

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…lant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464 - 488 - Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mist…

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 15/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…lant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464 - 488 - Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mist…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

ITA 87/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…lant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464 - 488 - Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mist…

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 33/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ellant is a statutory requirement, failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464-488 – Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713--- International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO V/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 IN THE CASE OF 454; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of…

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 32/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ellant is a statutory requirement, failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464-488 – Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713--- International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO V/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 IN THE CASE OF 454; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of…

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 31/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ellant is a statutory requirement, failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464-488 – Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713--- International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO V/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 IN THE CASE OF 454; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 127/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ellant is a statutory requirement, failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464-488 – Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713--- International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO V/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 IN THE CASE OF 454; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 126/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ellant is a statutory requirement, failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464-488 – Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713--- International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO V/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 IN THE CASE OF 454; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 125/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ellant is a statutory requirement, failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram v/s CIT 5 ITR 464-488 – Gurmuh Singh v/s CIT 12 ITR 692 713--- International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO V/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 IN THE CASE OF 454; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of…