ITO v. K M Pachiyappan

311 ITR 31Reported decision#17624 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

income escaping assessmentreason to believereopening of assessmentnotice under section 148section 139(1)reassessment proceedingssection 139section 143(1)section 68previous yearsection 143(2)section 13

Judgments citing ITO v. K M Pachiyappan

DCIT, Gurugram vs. Rajesh Kumar, Sonepat

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

…eding u/s.147 and failure to take steps u/s.143(3) will not render the AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation u/s.143(1) had been issued. Applying the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of ITO v. K. M. Pachiappan, 311 ITR 31, the validity of reassessment proceedings was upheld. The learned Judicial Member distinguished the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. on the ground that the notice u/s.148 was issued after the expiry of the time available for issuing notice u /s. 143(2) in that case. Following the latest decision of the jurisdictional High Court in…

Rajesh Kumar, Sonepat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

…eding u/s.147 and failure to take steps u/s.143(3) will not render the AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation u/s.143(1) had been issued. Applying the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of ITO v. K. M. Pachiappan, 311 ITR 31, the validity of reassessment proceedings was upheld. The learned Judicial Member distinguished the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. on the ground that the notice u/s.148 was issued after the expiry of the time available for issuing notice u /s. 143(2) in that case. Following the latest decision of the jurisdictional High Court in…

The ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…eri (supra) held that the assessing officer was barred from initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 when the time for issuance of notice under section 143(2) had not expired. However, taken a different view in the case of ITO v. K M Pachiyappan (311 ITR 31) (Mds.) upheld that the assessing officer in initiating the proceedings under section 147 in similar circumstances. However, it appears that the important distinction in fact of these two cases namely time available for issue of notice under section 143(2) had not expired in the case of K. M.Pachiappan (311 ITR 31) has not placed before the Madras…

ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2243/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…eri (supra) held that the assessing officer was barred from initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 when the time for issuance of notice under section 143(2) had not expired. However, taken a different view in the case of ITO v. K M Pachiyappan (311 ITR 31) (Mds.) upheld that the assessing officer in initiating the proceedings under section 147 in similar circumstances. However, it appears that the important distinction in fact of these two cases namely time available for issue of notice under section 143(2) had not expired in the case of K. M.Pachiappan (311 ITR 31) has not placed before the Madras…

Venu Gopal Karavadi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

ITA 202/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Venu Gopal Karavadi, Vs. Ito, Hyderabad. Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Pan- Bdbpk1736J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A Sai Prasad Shri B. Suresh Babu Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-04-2018 Order Per Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Hyderabad Dated 06.10.2016. Apart From The Issues Originally Contested In Appeal I.E Addition U/S Sec. 68 Of The It Act Of Two Deposits Of Rs. 4.45 Lakhs & Rs. 7.5 Laksh In Two Banks, Assessee Also Raised The Additional Grounds That Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 Of The It Act Ceased To Survive As The Officer Has Not Made Any Additions On The Issue On Which The Reasons For Reopening Are Based, Hence, A.O Is Not Justified In Making The Addition On Other Issues. We Have Heard Ld. Counsel & Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 50CSection 54Section 68

…case of Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) held that the assessing officer was barred from initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 when the time for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) had not expired. However, taken a different view in the case of ITO Vs. K M Pachiyappan (311 ITR 31) (Mds.) upheld that the assessing officer in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 in similar circumstances. However, it appears that the important distinction in fact of these two cases namely time available for issue of notice u/s. 143(2) had not expired in the case of K. M.Pachiappan (311 ITR 31) has not placed before the Madras High Court. Furthe…

ITO v. K M Pachiyappan (311 ITR 31) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax