Income Tax 35 ITR (Trib) 536 MUM-TRIB 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh

328 ITR 173High Court2010#9687 most cited

What is Income Tax 35 ITR (Trib) 536 MUM-TRIB 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh authority for?

Service of notice by affixture is a nullity in the absence of a local witness.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kishan Chand · service of notice · affixture · local witness · nullity · section 143 · section 148 · section 144 · section 147

Issues it is cited on

service of noticesection 143prescribedsection 14business

Judgments citing Income Tax 35 ITR (Trib) 536 MUM-TRIB 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vikram Electric Equipment P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4651/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shir Mahavir Singh() Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ue of validity of notice through affixture as under: 1. CIT Vs. Chetan Gupta [382 ITR 613 (Del.)]; 2. Veena Devi Karnani Vs. ITO [410 ITR 23 (Del.)]; 3. Pr.CIT Vs. M/s Dart Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 10/2022 dated 17.11.2023]; 4. CIT Vs. Kishan Chand [328 ITR 173 (P&H)]; 5. DCIT Vs. M/s Suruchi Foots Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.3536/Del/2017 & CO No.115/2023 dated 22.12.2023, ITAT (Del.)]; 8 I.T.A. No. 4651/Del/2018 & CO No.74/Del/2023 6. M/s Tourism India Management Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA No.1209/Del/2019 dated 04.12.2019, ITAT (Del)]; 7. Shri Gajendra singh Jadon Vs. ACIT [ITA No.6539/Del/2019 da…

Shuaib Ahmed, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 65(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7782/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…of affixture was not effected with the statutory provisions assessment made u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act as bad in law. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kishan Chand [(2010) 328 ITR 173 (P & H)] for the proposition that in the absence of any local witness service by affixture is nullity. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wg. Cdr. Sucha Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA. No. 1605/Del/2012 dated 11.04.2017. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that as the…

Shivaji S Desai, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)4, Mumbai

In the result, the assessment order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2272/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthy: A.Y : 2009-10 Shivaji S. Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer – 22(3)(4), Sagar Darshan Chs, Tower No. 2, Mumbai. (Respondent) Flat No. 1001, 10Th Floor, Sector-18, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) Pan : Affpd3240K Appellant By : Shri Prakash Pandit Respondent By : Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary & Shri Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary &
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…of them are as under : i) Heaven Distillery (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, 185 TTJ (Mumbai Trib) 197; ii) Purshotam Singh vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 47 CCH 0603 Asr Trib; iii) Chandra Agencies vs Income Tax Officer, 89 ITD Page 1 ; iv) CIT vs Kishan Chand, 328 ITR 173 (P&H); v) Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. vs ACIT, 390 ITR 167 (Ker); and, vi) ACIT vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 379 ITR 14 (All). 5. Per contra, Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary & Shri Mehul Jain representing the Department vehemently defended the contents of the Affidavit filed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submitted that ef…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…in e) 229 CTR 188 (P&H) CIT vs. Cebon India Ltd. f) CIT vs. Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 1171/2008 dated 31.08.2009 (Del) g) CIT vs. Chandra Agencies ITA No. 99, 100 and 125 of 2004 dated 201.0.2010 (Del) h) 208 Taxation 649 (P&H) CIT vs. Avtar Singh i) 328 ITR 173 (P&H) CIT vs. Kishan Chand j) 157 Taxman 357 (P&H) CIT vs. Sunita Gupta 3.7 It is also submitted that, so far as the validity of initiation of proceedings is concerned, the service of a valid notice is a condition precedent to the validity of assessment. This is well settled proposition of law and if any authority is required, the same will be…

Shri Sanjeev Patni, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Section 10Section 139Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 69

…to be done in accordance with procedure laid down in by Order V, rule 17-20 of CPC. Our observations are also supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: Naveen Chande [2010] 323 ITR 49 (Punjab & Haryana); Kishan Chand [2010] 328 ITR 173 (PUNJ. & HAR); CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad[2006] 280 ITR 541/[2005] 147 Taxman 441; and RAM SINGH MATHUR [2007] 112 TTJ 989 (DELHI) (ITAT Delhi Bench). 10. We further find that this Tribunal vide order dated 20.5.2021 in the case of M/s. Swastik Coal Corporation P. Ltd., Indore in ITA No. for the A.Y. 477/Ind/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) has decid…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (1), Indore vs. Shri Sanjeev Patni, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Section 10Section 139Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 69

…to be done in accordance with procedure laid down in by Order V, rule 17-20 of CPC. Our observations are also supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: Naveen Chande [2010] 323 ITR 49 (Punjab & Haryana); Kishan Chand [2010] 328 ITR 173 (PUNJ. & HAR); CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad[2006] 280 ITR 541/[2005] 147 Taxman 441; and RAM SINGH MATHUR [2007] 112 TTJ 989 (DELHI) (ITAT Delhi Bench). 10. We further find that this Tribunal vide order dated 20.5.2021 in the case of M/s. Swastik Coal Corporation P. Ltd., Indore in ITA No. for the A.Y. 477/Ind/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) has decid…

Sh. Shambhu Kumar, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 957/CHANDI/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The Acit, Circle-V, Prop.M/S Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, Vpo Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aihpk8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “बी ” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी एन. के. सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The ACIT, Circle-V, Prop.M/s Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, VPO Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AIHPK8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1007/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 The DCIT, Circle-5, Vs. Shri Shambhu…

DCIT, C-3, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Shambhu Kumar, Jugiana

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

ITA 1492/CHANDI/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The Acit, Circle-V, Prop.M/S Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, Vpo Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aihpk8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “बी ” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी एन. के. सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The ACIT, Circle-V, Prop.M/s Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, VPO Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AIHPK8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1007/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 The DCIT, Circle-5, Vs. Shri Shambhu…

DCIT, C-5, Ludhiana vs. Shri Shambhu Kumar, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1007/CHANDI/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The Acit, Circle-V, Prop.M/S Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, Vpo Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aihpk8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “बी ” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी एन. के. सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The ACIT, Circle-V, Prop.M/s Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, VPO Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AIHPK8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1007/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 The DCIT, Circle-5, Vs. Shri Shambhu…

Shubhani Engineering & Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1431/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarshubhani Engineering & Vs. Ito, Ward 8(3), Consultants Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Wb-12B, Gali No. 1, School Block Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

…2) of the At within the limitation period and ground no. 1 deserves to succeed and may kindly quash the assessment order. He relied upon the following cases:- i) Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kishand Chand reported in 328 ITR 173. ii) ITAT, Delhi decision in the case of Ess Aar Exports vs. ITO reported in 94 ITD 484. iii) CIT vs. Chandra Agencies (Delhi) 202 Taxman 106. iv) CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (SC). v) ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (SC) 324 ITR 372 (2010). vi) ITAT, Delhi decision in Mico Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1669/Del/2014 dated 30.8.2016. vii) ITAT, A…

Smt. Nalini Shyam Moundekar, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed as above

ITA 516/NAG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 144Section 148Section 5

…ixture-Validity-Name of person who identified assessee’s business premises not mentioned in the report of Inspector- Inspector also did not claim personal knowledge of assessee’s premises – Service of Notice by affixture is invalid.” 2) CIT vs. Kishan Chand. 328 ITR 173 (P&H): “The assessee is individual and as a sequel to the search and seizure operation was conducted on his premises, he filed revised return. The AO framed assessment under s. 144 of the Act on the basis of best judgement assessment. The CIT(A) accepted the appeal mainly on the ground that the assessee had not been served. Evidence with regard t…

Income Tax 35 ITR (Trib) 536 MUM-TRIB 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (328 ITR 173) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax