Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO

99 ITD 621Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#3265 most cited

What is Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO authority for?

When an assessment order under section 147 of the Income-tax Act is void or without jurisdiction, the Principal Commissioner cannot revise such an order under section 263 as it is a non-est order.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO · section 147 · section 263 · void assessment order · non-est order · without jurisdiction · revisionary powers

Also reported as

101 TTJ 450

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 144BSection 151Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 151ASection 263

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)inadequate enquirysection 80hhcrevision under section 263revision u/s 263first proviso to section 147assessment order erroneouspermanent account numbernon application of mindsection 151alack of enquirysection 10(38)

Judgments citing Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2231/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

…t as well as initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. In this regard other than the case laws cited supra, the Ld.AR for the assessee placed before us two decisions one rendered by Lucknow Bench of Tribunal in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and the Mumbai Tribunal ‘ G ‘ Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA No.688/Mum/2016. In both the decisions a view has been taken by the Tribunal that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of :- 10 -: the Act was without jurisdiction, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act ag…

NAGARAJAN JAYA,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KANCHIPURAM

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1815/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 264

…gjeet Singh Vs DCIT/ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 324 (Amritsar – Trib) 2. Raghu Raj Pratap Singh Vs ACIT [2009]179 taxmann.com 73 (Allahabad) 3. Concord Infra Projects Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT ITA.No.174/Kol/2021 dt.13.10.2021 4. Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) Vs ITO [2006] 99 ITD 621 (Lucknow) 11. The courts have held that validity of reassessment can be challenged in the subsequent proceedings, in the present facts of the case, it is actually a continuation of the original reassessment and therefore, the challenge to the reassessment can very well be raised. 12. Having held that the validity of the jurisdiction can be chall…

DHARAM CHAND AGARWAL,KANPUR (UTTAR PARDESH) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR- I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…ision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., (2010) 195 taxman 117. The ld. AR also invited our attention to the decision of the ITAT Lucknow ‘A’ Bench in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs. ITO-3(4), Kanpur (2006) 99 ITD 621 (Luck) wherein the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal had held that where the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was itself illegal and void, the ld. CIT had no justification to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 against such void and non-est order. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the judgment of the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘G’ in t…

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. PR, CIT 20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2641/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. Cit-20, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aakpj1872B

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 263Section 69C

…Mumbai), the ITAT held that when an Assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act was illegal the CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO (2006) 101 TTJ 450 (ITAT Lucknow), the ITAT held that as the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147 / 143(3) was itself void, the order of PCIT passed under section 263 for quashing this order was without jurisdiction. In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that since the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Ahmeda…

THOMAS VICTOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2987/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271D

…s well as initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. In this regard other than the case laws cited supra, the Ld.AR for the assessee placed before us two decisions one rendered by Lucknow Bench of Tribunal in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and the Mumbai Tribunal ‘ G ‘ Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA No.688/Mum/2016. In both the decisions a view has been taken by the Tribunal that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against s…

THE CHENNAI CO-OP. SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP. AND SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 151ASection 263Section 80ASection 80P

…s well as initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. In this regard other than the case laws cited supra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed before us two decisions one rendered by Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai ‘ G ‘ Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA NO.688/Mum/2016. In both the decisions a view has been taken by the Tribunal that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such voi…

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 263

…Mumbai), the ITAT held that when an Assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act was illegal the CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO (2006) 101 TTJ 450 (ITAT Lucknow), the ITAT held that as the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147/143(3) was itself void, the order of PCIT passed under section 263 for quashing this order was without jurisdiction. In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that since the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 3(3)(2). Ahmedaba…

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…ITA No. 637/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2013-2014) & Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 637/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [PAN:AAHCA9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, K…

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…ITA No. 637/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2013-2014) & Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 637/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [PAN:AAHCA9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, K…

S S BRAHMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 263Section 69

…Mumbai), the ITAT held that when an Assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act was illegal the CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO (2006) 101 TTJ 450 (ITAT Lucknow), the ITAT held that as the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147 / 143(3) was itself void, the order of PCIT passed under section 263 for quashing this order was without jurisdiction. In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that since the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Ahmeda…

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

…M/s Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd (ITAT, Delhi) - M/s Classic Flour & Food Processing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No. 764 to 766/Kol/2014 dated 05.04.2017 (ITAT, Koikata)” d) In the case of the Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai ‘ G ‘ Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.l.T. in ITA No.688/Mum/2016. In both the decisions a view has been taken by the Tribunal that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void o…

LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

ITA 89/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…Mumbai), the ITAT held that when an Assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act was illegal the CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO (2006) 101 TTJ 450 (ITAT Lucknow), the ITAT held that as the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147 / 143(3) was itself void, the order of PCIT passed under section 263 for quashing this order was without jurisdiction. In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that since the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Ahmeda…

RED MONSTER MOBILE PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400021 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…/s 143(3) of the Act, to challenge the validity of the expansion of order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act covering the points which are not part of the AIR. In this regard we find that Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai 'G' Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA NO.688/Mum/2016 have taken a view that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was illegal the Ld.CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the second decision cited the Hon'ble Mum…

KABIR TRIPAT OBEROI,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -20, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

…/s 143(3) of the Act, to challenge the validity of the expansion of order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act covering the points which are not part of the AIR. In this regard we find that Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai 'G' Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA NO.688/Mum/2016 have taken a view that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was illegal the Ld.CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the second decision cited the Hon'ble Mum…

KAPIL TRIPAT OBEROI,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -20, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

…/s 143(3) of the Act, to challenge the validity of the expansion of order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act covering the points which are not part of the AIR. In this regard we find that Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai 'G' Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA NO.688/Mum/2016 have taken a view that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was illegal the Ld.CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the second decision cited the Hon'ble Mum…

SHABANA KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR-1, JABALPUR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

ITA 29/JAB/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 263

…d not valid, and the proceedings dropped, there was no question of it‟s revision, for which reliance was placed by him on Pushpa G. Bansal vs. Pr. CIT (in ITA Nos. 883-885/PUN/2016, dated 12/05/2022/PB, pgs. 33-35) and Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs. ITO [2006] 99 ITD 621 (Luck.), placing copies thereof on record. 3. The Revenue‟s case, on the other hand, is that acceptance of the returned income would not per se make the assessment proceedings bad in law. The revision proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings, so that where the condition/s for revision is met, as specified in Explanatio…

KADEER KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 28/JAB/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 263

…d not valid, and the proceedings dropped, there was no question of it‟s revision, for which reliance was placed by him on Pushpa G. Bansal vs. Pr. CIT (in ITA Nos. 883-885/PUN/2016, dated 12/05/2022/PB, pgs. 33-35) and Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs. ITO [2006] 99 ITD 621 (Luck.), placing copies thereof on record. 3. The Revenue‟s case, on the other hand, is that acceptance of the returned income would not per se make the assessment proceedings bad in law. The revision proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings, so that where the condition/s for revision is met, as specified in Explanatio…

SANDEEP P. PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -16, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 678/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Toprani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

…/s 143(3) of the Act, to challenge the validity of the expansion of order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act covering the points which are not part of the AIR. In this regard we find that Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai 'G' Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA NO.688/Mum/2016 have taken a view that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was illegal the Ld.CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the second decision cited the Hon'ble Mum…

M/S GOLDEN VINCOM PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

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

ITA 143/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…the order passed u/s. 147 of the Act as well as initiation of proceedings u/.s 147 of the Act. In this regard the Id. Counsel for the assessee placed before us two decisions one rendered by Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai ‘ G ‘ Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA NO.688/Mum/2016. In both the decisions a view has been taken by the Tribunal that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was illegal the CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In…

MR. KISHORE NANDLAL CHABRIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-16, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1554/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1554/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Mr. Kishore Nandlal Pcit-16 Room No.437, 4Th Floor Chabria Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, Radheya Aayakar Bhavan, Building, 14Th Road, Khar Maharishi Karve Road, West, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc5779R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Singh Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.07.2020 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 Is Void Ab Initio Being Had In Law Based On Assumptions & Wrong Facts & Without Jurisdiction. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…/s 143(3) of the Act, to challenge the validity of the expansion of order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act covering the points which are not part of the AIR. In this regard we find that Lucknow Bench of Hon‟ble ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai „G„ Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.I.T. in ITA NO.688/Mum/2016 have taken a view that when an Assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was illegal the Ld.CIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against such void or non-est order. In the second decision cited the Hon‟ble Mum…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2