ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty

52 ITR 538Supreme Court of India1964#11695 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2024.

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

compensatory interestsection 243section 262section 2(40)section 89section 208section 210section 115jaasection 140asection 90asection 115jasection 245d

Judgments citing ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty

Venkateshwar Nemuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-4(1), It Towers

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 363/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 68

…er section 68 of the Act and therefore, no addition could be made on that score. Ld. CIT(A), however referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of L.Hazari Mal Kuthiala vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 12 (SC) and ITO vs. Saghu Buchiah Setty (1964) 52 ITR 538 (SC) and repel the contention of the assessee holding that where the power to proceed is actually there, mere reference to a wrong section for authority to act, will not vitiate the action taken and such mere mentioning of wrong section by the learned Assessing Officer would not ipso facto render the entire addition is illegal. He, however, direct…

M/S Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…it’s decision, even as it refers to the decision in Mahesh Investments v. Asst. CIT [2021] 123 taxmann.com 6 (Kar) [277 Taxman 161 / [2020] 429 ITR 284 (Kar)) as being supportive of the assessee’s case. 4.6 The Apex Court in ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty [1964] 52 ITR 538 (SC) held that there was not much difference between annulment and set aside of an order inasmuch as both wipe out the original order; in it’s words:(pg. 544) ‘There is not much difference between annulling an order and setting it aside; both wipe out the original order.’ In the facts of the case the issue was as to whether the demand notice per t…

M/S Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…it’s decision, even as it refers to the decision in Mahesh Investments v. Asst. CIT [2021] 123 taxmann.com 6 (Kar) [277 Taxman 161 / [2020] 429 ITR 284 (Kar)) as being supportive of the assessee’s case. 4.6 The Apex Court in ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty [1964] 52 ITR 538 (SC) held that there was not much difference between annulment and set aside of an order inasmuch as both wipe out the original order; in it’s words:(pg. 544) ‘There is not much difference between annulling an order and setting it aside; both wipe out the original order.’ In the facts of the case the issue was as to whether the demand notice per t…

M/S Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…it’s decision, even as it refers to the decision in Mahesh Investments v. Asst. CIT [2021] 123 taxmann.com 6 (Kar) [277 Taxman 161 / [2020] 429 ITR 284 (Kar)) as being supportive of the assessee’s case. 4.6 The Apex Court in ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty [1964] 52 ITR 538 (SC) held that there was not much difference between annulment and set aside of an order inasmuch as both wipe out the original order; in it’s words:(pg. 544) ‘There is not much difference between annulling an order and setting it aside; both wipe out the original order.’ In the facts of the case the issue was as to whether the demand notice per t…

M/S Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…it’s decision, even as it refers to the decision in Mahesh Investments v. Asst. CIT [2021] 123 taxmann.com 6 (Kar) [277 Taxman 161 / [2020] 429 ITR 284 (Kar)) as being supportive of the assessee’s case. 4.6 The Apex Court in ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty [1964] 52 ITR 538 (SC) held that there was not much difference between annulment and set aside of an order inasmuch as both wipe out the original order; in it’s words:(pg. 544) ‘There is not much difference between annulling an order and setting it aside; both wipe out the original order.’ In the facts of the case the issue was as to whether the demand notice per t…

Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

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

ITA 8/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…the instant appeal which contains all material information. In this light, this particular decision does not come to his assistance. In another case relied upon, i.e., in Income Tax Officer, Kolar Circle and Another vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty [1964] reported in 52 ITR 538, the gravamen of the dispute was that the Assessing Officer did not issue fresh notice of demand pursuant to the modification in the order of assessment made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but by a letter informed the respondent that he had to pay tax as reduced by the appellate order. Premised on this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (majorit…

Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

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

ITA 211/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…the instant appeal which contains all material information. In this light, this particular decision does not come to his assistance. In another case relied upon, i.e., in Income Tax Officer, Kolar Circle and Another vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty [1964] reported in 52 ITR 538, the gravamen of the dispute was that the Assessing Officer did not issue fresh notice of demand pursuant to the modification in the order of assessment made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but by a letter informed the respondent that he had to pay tax as reduced by the appellate order. Premised on this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (majorit…

Sanjay Kaul, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1593/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 70

…fficer has correctly acquired the jurisdiction over the case and only mistake is under which section the addition should be made. 6.1 In view of the law pronounced in the L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 12 (SC), ITO vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty (1964) 52 ITR 538 (SC) : TC52R.1343 and P.M. Bharucha & Co. vs. ITO (1969) 74 ITR 513 (Guj), it is well settled that where the power to proceed is actually there, the mere reference to a wrong section for authority to act, will not vitiate the action taken. The Honble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in the case of IMPERIAL BOX & CARTON MAKERS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, re…

Mohan Wahi vs. Commnr. Income Tax, Varanasi

The appeal stands allowed in

C.A. No.-002488-002488 - 2001Supreme Court30 Mar 2001
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX, VARANASI & ORS

…sion corresponding with Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 contained in Section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 came up for the consideration of this Court in Income-Tax Officer, Kolar Circle and Anr. Vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty - (1964) 52 ITR 538. Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then was) held that it is after the demand is made, the tax penalty and interest become a debt due to the Government The notice of demand is a vital document in many respects. Disobedience to it makes the assessee a defaulter. It is a condition precedent to the treatment of the tax as an arrear…

ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty (52 ITR 538) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax