ITO v. Biju Patnaik

188 ITR 247Supreme Court of India1991#8276 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

Judgments citing ITO v. Biju Patnaik

ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

…facts and in law while issuing the notice u/ s 147 / 148 and was justified in forming the belief that the income of the appellant has escaped assessment for the assessment year under consideration. 8. Otherwise also, in the case of ITO vs. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247, the Apex Court has sounded to note of caution that at the stage of issue of notice u/s 147 / 148 of the Act, the court is not to go into the merits of the controversy whether a particular income is taxable or not. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, it is requested that the c…

CANDOR INFRATECH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2192/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2192/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Candor Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Sf-2, Bhikaji Kama Bhawan, Bhikaji Circle-5(2), Kama Place, New Delhi-110066 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcc4093R Assessee By : Sh. G. V. N. Hari, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Cit(A)-12, New Delhi’S In Case No. 46/17-18 Dated 15.12.2017, In Proceedings U/S 148/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. G. V. N. Hari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 151

…4. Learned CIT-DR on the other hand vehemently submits in light of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC), ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), ITO Vs. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247 (SC), ITO Vs. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) and Sonia Gandhi Vs. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 594 (Del.) that neither the prescribed authorities’ above section 151 approval could be held as bad in the eyes of law nor the assessee is entitled to raise it’s foregoing additional ground at this belated stage once the Assessing Officer had rec…

ITO 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LIMBO ENGINEERING P LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…warranted. In case, he had any doubts in this regard, he should have examined information received from ADIT (Inv)-Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (Inv)-U-2(2) Kolkota/STR/36911 dated 05.03.2018 as held by the Apex Court in ITO Vs. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247 (SC).Tt is settled law that, in an administrative action, though the order does not ex facie disclose the satisfaction by the officer of the necessary facts if M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. the record discloses the same, the notice or the order does not per se become illegal. Identical is the view held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs De…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S WELLKNOWN POLYSTERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…warranted. In case, he had any doubts in this regard, he should have examined information received from ADIT (Inv)-Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (Inv)-U-2(2) Kolkota/STR/36911 dated 05.03.2018 as held by the Apex Court in ITO Vs. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247 (SC).Tt is settled law that, in an administrative action, though the order does not ex facie disclose the satisfaction by the officer of the necessary facts if M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. the record discloses the same, the notice or the order does not per se become illegal. Identical is the view held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs De…

ITO 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LIMBO ENGINEERING P LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…warranted. In case, he had any doubts in this regard, he should have examined information received from ADIT (Inv)-Unit-2(2), Kolkota vide letter No. ADIT (Inv)-U-2(2) Kolkota/STR/36911 dated 05.03.2018 as held by the Apex Court in ITO Vs. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247 (SC).Tt is settled law that, in an administrative action, though the order does not ex facie disclose the satisfaction by the officer of the necessary facts if M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. the record discloses the same, the notice or the order does not per se become illegal. Identical is the view held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs De…

CHIRAG R. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 31(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 792/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Mahavir Singh (JM) & Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 792/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Chirag R. Shah ITO 31(1)(3) Vs. E-29, 2nd Floor Mumbai. Hiren Shopping Centre M.G. Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai. PAN : AVQPS7888H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri N.M. Porwal Department by Shri Akhtar H. Ansari Date of Hearing 19.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 07.12.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(appeal) dated 2.9.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. 2…

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…ion 1. ACIT V/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Hon’ble Supreme 291 ITR 500 Pvt. Ltd. Court 2. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of Hon'ble Bombay High 2013 350 ITR 651 India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. Court 3. ITO & Ors. vs. Biju Patnaik Hon'ble Supreme [1991] 188 ITR 247 Court 4. A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT Hon'ble Supreme [1991] 189 ITR 285 Court 5. M/s. Eleganza Jewellery Limited vs. CIT Hon'ble Bombay High W.P.No.2763 of 2013 Court Dated 18/02/2014 6. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO & Hon'ble Supreme [1999] 236 ITR 34(SC) Ors. Court Dated 17/12/1997 7. Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. Hon'ble Bombay High [20…

RANJANA SEN GUPTA RAGHAVAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-71(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3337/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3337/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ranjana Sen Gupta Raghavan, Vs Income Tax Officer, H-1592, Chittaranjan Park, Ward-71(2), New Delhi-110019 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Advpr4425Q Assessee By : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pradeep Kumar Meel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-32, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Meel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…be doing so without any material on record. In my view the rejection of the objections raised by the assessee on the premises of the apex court decision ratios in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 and ITO v. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247 is also wrong. In Rajesh Jhaveri's case supra the point at issue was whether initiating of the reassessment proceedings on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer was sustainable. The Court ruled in favour of the Revenue. It did not because there was a satisfaction on record unlike the present case which is conspicuous b…

DR.R.P.PATEL,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petitions are dismissed

ITA 587/COCH/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.586 To 588 /Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2001-02 Dr. R.P. Patel, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hahneman House, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kottayam. College Road, Kottayam. [Pan: Aevpp 8606G]

Section 148

…ch reasons at the time of issuing the same. The statute does not require that the notice u/s. 148 should disclose the reasons for re-opening of the assessment. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO & Ors. vs. Biju Patnaik (188 ITR 247). The only requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 148 is that there must be reasons to justify the belief that there is escapement of income. The requirement is only so far and no further and the requirement of furnishing of reasons at the stage of issue of notice does not arise. Because no reasons are stated in the notice, it does not mean…

DR.R.P.PATEL,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petitions are dismissed

ITA 586/COCH/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.586 To 588 /Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2001-02 Dr. R.P. Patel, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hahneman House, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kottayam. College Road, Kottayam. [Pan: Aevpp 8606G]

Section 148

…ch reasons at the time of issuing the same. The statute does not require that the notice u/s. 148 should disclose the reasons for re-opening of the assessment. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO & Ors. vs. Biju Patnaik (188 ITR 247). The only requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 148 is that there must be reasons to justify the belief that there is escapement of income. The requirement is only so far and no further and the requirement of furnishing of reasons at the stage of issue of notice does not arise. Because no reasons are stated in the notice, it does not mean…

DR.R.P.PATEL,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petitions are dismissed

ITA 588/COCH/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.586 To 588 /Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2001-02 Dr. R.P. Patel, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hahneman House, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kottayam. College Road, Kottayam. [Pan: Aevpp 8606G]

Section 148

…ch reasons at the time of issuing the same. The statute does not require that the notice u/s. 148 should disclose the reasons for re-opening of the assessment. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO & Ors. vs. Biju Patnaik (188 ITR 247). The only requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 148 is that there must be reasons to justify the belief that there is escapement of income. The requirement is only so far and no further and the requirement of furnishing of reasons at the stage of issue of notice does not arise. Because no reasons are stated in the notice, it does not mean…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. IDM AGRO BIO TECH LIMITED , MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5805/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-10(1)(2), Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Revenue) : (Assessee) ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No. 260/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5805/Mum/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Ito-10(1)(2), A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri N. Hemalatha Revenue By Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ing to and therefore, the reasons for re-opening of the assessment are not based on mere suspicion. The following judicial precedents support the action of the AO - The Supreme Court in the case of Income-Tax Officer, Cuttack and Others v. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247 that: "Thus, though ex facie the notice does not disclose the satisfaction of the requirement of section 147(a), from the record and the averments in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the Income tax Officer had applied his mind to the facts and, after prima facie satisfying himself of the existence of those two conditions precedent, reached…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DEEPAK KNITS AND TEXTURISE PVT. LTD

ITA/769/2010HC Delhi29 Mar 2012
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…Page 8 of 10 material facts stated by the assessee would not be true. They would not meet the condition “fully”. In this connection, we reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in Income-Tax Officer, Cuttack and Others Vs. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247:- “It is undoubtedly true that the notice does not prima facie disclose the satisfaction of the two conditions precedent enjoined under section 147(a), but in the counter affidavit filed by the Income tax Officer in the High Court, he stated all the material facts. The respondent had inspected the record and the record also bears out the…

ITO v. Biju Patnaik (188 ITR 247) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax