Isha Beevi v. TRO

SHRIMATI SUDHA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

…essee that as the A.O had made a mention of Sec. 153A along with Sec. 143(3), therefore, the assessment was liable to be held as invalid and void ab initio. It was observed by the CIT(A), that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Isha Beevi Vs. TRO (1975) 101 ITR 449 (SC), had held that a mere wrong reference to a section under which an order is made would not vitiate the assessment order, but in fact the validity of the same has to be determined by seeking as to whether or not the A.O had any power to pass such an order. It was noticed by the CIT(A) that the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that if the power…

SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

…ssessee that as the A.O had made a mention of Sec. 153A along with Sec. 143(3), therefore, the assessment was liable to be held as invalid and void abinitio. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Isha Beevi Vs. TRO (1975) 101 ITR 449 (SC), had held that a mere wrong reference to a section under which an order is made would not vitiate the assessment order, but in fact the validity of the same was to be determined by seeking as to whether or not the A.O had any power to pass such an order. It was noticed by the CIT(A), that the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that if the power…

SH. INDERJEET SINGH ARORA,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [Pan: Advpa 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By A Period Of 21 Days. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Petition Dated 06/8/2016 By The Assessee Is The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, Served On His Counsel, Sh.Pankaj Arora, On 17/2/2014, In Time. The Explanation Appears Bona Fide & The Delay Cannot Be Said To Be Substantial. The Delay Was Accordingly Condoned & The Hearing In The Matter Proceeded With.

…69A, or even non-mention of a section is, under the circumstances, and even as observed by the Bench during hearing, of no consequence in terms of the trite law [refer, inter alia, L. Hazari Mal Kathulia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC); Isha Beevi v. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 (SC); Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H); and CIT v. Hargopal Bhalla & Sons [1971] 82 ITR 243 (P&H)]. On merits, the AO in the remand report (PB pgs. 29-30) clearly states that no evidence as to the housing loan from Citi Bank (or any other institution for that 4 Inderjeet Singh Arora v. ITO matter) had been furnished before him in th…