ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah

218 ITR 239Supreme Court of India1996#669 most cited

What is ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah authority for?

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer must tax any taxable income in the hands of the correct assessee to whom it truly belongs, having no option to assess it in any other person's hands.

149

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah · 218 ITR 239 · 84 Taxmann 630 · correct assessee · right person taxation · Assessing Officer's duty · unexplained money · unexplained investment · section 69A · section 132(4) · assessment of income · identification of real owner

Also reported as

84 Taxmann 630

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144BSection 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271fsection 139(4)section 292csection 292section 271asection 29loose papersunexplained investmentunexplained moneysection 132(4)double taxationsection 23

Judgments citing ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah

Sh. Surya Kant Jaipuria, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6781/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

…belong to JLSSPL, in which assessee and his family members are directors; that the ld. CIT (A) has sustained the addition of Rs.11,48,000/- despite the fact that the said cash actually belongs to JLSSPL and relied upon the decisions of ITO vs. C Atchaiah – 218 ITR 239 (SC), CIT vs. Nayan Engg Works – 248 ITR 596 (Mad.), S.R. Venkat Raman vs. CIT – 127 ITR 807 (Kar) and CIT vs. Kulwant Rai – 291 ITR 36 (Del.). 4 6. However, on the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by ld. AR for the assessee contended that since the assessee has failed to discharge the onus to explain th…

M/S Manoj Metal Udyog, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-35(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133A

…f the assessment proceedings. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether the discrepancy found in stock of pig iron, scrap and cash can be assessed in the hands of the assessee firm or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) has held that the income should be assessed on the right person, right year and it should be on the right income. From the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court only the right person and the right person alone is liable to be taxed and not the wrong person. Here, we note that assessee firm has filed its return of income in the asse…

ACIT, Circle-2, Asansol vs. M/S. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Burdwan

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2130/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 16. It should be kept in mind that as per the scheme of the Act, the income should be taxed in the right hand, in the right year and it should be on the right income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC). The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in S. R. Costhi Vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (SC) held, inter alia, “the authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961 are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is ov…

Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Asansol

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2119/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 16. It should be kept in mind that as per the scheme of the Act, the income should be taxed in the right hand, in the right year and it should be on the right income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC). The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in S. R. Costhi Vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (SC) held, inter alia, “the authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961 are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is ov…

Pratiksha Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…te ITAT for re-examination. Hence, it will have to be first decided as to whether the assessment made by the AO. in the hands of the assessee is correct or not. Further, as held by the Honb'le Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer vs Ch. Atchaiah 84 Taxman 630, 218 ITR 239 (SC), under the 1961 Act, the Assessing Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By 'right person' is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to Law, with respect to a particular income. The expression 'wrong person' is obviously used as the o…

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 982/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…ed is sufficient and it is not necessary that the beneficiaries should be specifically named in the deed of trust deed On the contention that assessment has to be made on the right person, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) is not applicable to the Appellant’s case as unlike 1922 Act, there is no such option available in 1961 Act. In case of a determinate trust, as discussed in pt. no. 3 above, the Trustee is assessed as representative assessee in respect of income received on behalf of the beneficiary. The Trustee of the Appellant is therefore assessable as “repr…

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 981/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…ed is sufficient and it is not necessary that the beneficiaries should be specifically named in the deed of trust deed On the contention that assessment has to be made on the right person, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) is not applicable to the Appellant’s case as unlike 1922 Act, there is no such option available in 1961 Act. In case of a determinate trust, as discussed in pt. no. 3 above, the Trustee is assessed as representative assessee in respect of income received on behalf of the beneficiary. The Trustee of the Appellant is therefore assessable as “repr…

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1902/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…ed is sufficient and it is not necessary that the beneficiaries should be specifically named in the deed of trust deed On the contention that assessment has to be made on the right person, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) is not applicable to the Appellant’s case as unlike 1922 Act, there is no such option available in 1961 Act. In case of a determinate trust, as discussed in pt. no. 3 above, the Trustee is assessed as representative assessee in respect of income received on behalf of the beneficiary. The Trustee of the Appellant is therefore assessable as “repr…

ITO, Chennai vs. Tvs Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1401/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…ed is sufficient and it is not necessary that the beneficiaries should be specifically named in the deed of trust deed On the contention that assessment has to be made on the right person, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) is not applicable to the Appellant’s case as unlike 1922 Act, there is no such option available in 1961 Act. In case of a determinate trust, as discussed in pt. no. 3 above, the Trustee is assessed as representative assessee in respect of income received on behalf of the beneficiary. The Trustee of the Appellant is therefore assessable as “repr…

ITO, Chennai vs. Tvs Shriram Grwoth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1345/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…ed is sufficient and it is not necessary that the beneficiaries should be specifically named in the deed of trust deed On the contention that assessment has to be made on the right person, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) is not applicable to the Appellant’s case as unlike 1922 Act, there is no such option available in 1961 Act. In case of a determinate trust, as discussed in pt. no. 3 above, the Trustee is assessed as representative assessee in respect of income received on behalf of the beneficiary. The Trustee of the Appellant is therefore assessable as “repr…

ACIT Cir 21(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Michigan Jv -Mithi River, Mumbai

ITA 6690/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () - Ay 2009-10 - Ay 2010-11

…g from 4 Reliance Michigan JV contract in the hands of assessee. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nayantara vs CIT 207 ITR 639 (Bom) and on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Ch. Achaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC) in support of his proposition. 5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel of the assessee vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is speaking and well reasoned and based upon facts of the case. It was submitted that assessee is a partnership firm. All of the three entities i.e assessee firm and its…

Kirit D. Sanghvi and 2 Others, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6866/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6866/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 26

…judice to the fact that the income had been shown by the assessee, and thereafter processed by the department u/s 143(1) in the hands of the AOP, the A.O shall in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of : ITO Vs. Ch. Attchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court making it obligatory on the part of the department to assess the income in the hands of the right person, and the right person alone, irrespective of the fact that which course is more beneficial to the revenue, had therein observed as under:- “We are of the opinion that under the present Act, the ITO has no o…

M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 7283/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…x it in the hands of the right person where such income is assessable. The Ld. AR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Atchaih Page 18 of 20 ITA No.7282 & 7283/Mum/2007 Patel Engineering Ltd. A.Y:03-04 & 04-05 (CH) (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) for the proposition that even where an income is assessed in the hands of a member of AOP, it will not prevent the income to be assessed in the hands of AOP. Reverse analogy is also true. The Ld. AR also submitted that no real income had accrued to the joint venture and therefore, no income is assessable in its hand by virtue of agreement dt…

M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 7282/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…x it in the hands of the right person where such income is assessable. The Ld. AR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Atchaih Page 18 of 20 ITA No.7282 & 7283/Mum/2007 Patel Engineering Ltd. A.Y:03-04 & 04-05 (CH) (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) for the proposition that even where an income is assessed in the hands of a member of AOP, it will not prevent the income to be assessed in the hands of AOP. Reverse analogy is also true. The Ld. AR also submitted that no real income had accrued to the joint venture and therefore, no income is assessable in its hand by virtue of agreement dt…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Nagarbail Salt-Owners

Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

ITA/100067/2015HC Karnataka19 Nov 2016

Bench: Offering The Profit For Tax?”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(31)Section 260ASection 44ASection 80P(1)(d)

…ORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS Ltd v. CIT reported in 227 ITR 172 (SC) to contend that an issue will have to be decided on the principle of law and not in accordance with the accounting practice; ii) Income Tax Officer v. C H Atchaiah reported in 218 ITR 239 (SC) to contend that if the income is of an ‘association of persons’, then, in law, it is the association alone which has to be taxed. iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indira Balakrishna reported in 39 ITR 546 (SC) to contend that the word ‘associate’ means to join in common purpose and in the instant case assessee is an : 21 :…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sector Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.E.Dastur, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT &
Section 199

…ly the income in question has to be brought to tax in the hands of association of persons at the maximum marginal rate. In this regard, the Assessing Officer made reference to the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239/84 Taxman 630 wherein, in the context of assessment of income of an association of persons, it was held by the hon'ble Supreme Court that income has to be brought to tax in the hands of right person. The assessee had before the Assessing Officer relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of its stand that there was no association…

ACIT vs. Icici Emerging Sector Fund

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 475/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)
Section 61Section 63

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. India Advantage Fund-I, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI 3344R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.348/Bang/2011 Assessment year : 2008-09, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. ICICI Emerging of Income Tax, Sectors Fund, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S India Advantage Fund I, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)
Section 61Section 63

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. India Advantage Fund-I, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI 3344R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.348/Bang/2011 Assessment year : 2008-09, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. ICICI Emerging of Income Tax, Sectors Fund, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sector Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 177/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)
Section 61Section 63

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. India Advantage Fund-I, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI 3344R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.348/Bang/2011 Assessment year : 2008-09, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. ICICI Emerging of Income Tax, Sectors Fund, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sectors Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 348/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)
Section 61Section 63

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. India Advantage Fund-I, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI 3344R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.348/Bang/2011 Assessment year : 2008-09, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. ICICI Emerging of Income Tax, Sectors Fund, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI…