Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat

48 ITR 177Supreme Court of India1963#4868 most cited

What is Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat authority for?

Service of notice within the prescribed limitation period is fundamental to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen an assessment. The 1961 Act distinguishes between the 'issue' and 'service' of notice for reassessment.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 149 · service of notice · limitation · jurisdiction · reassessment · income escaping assessment · issue of notice

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 149

Issues it is cited on

section 124(1)section 2(7a)section 148(1)section 124section 120section 292bbsection 292bsection 34section 127income escaping assessmentnon-application of mindservice of notice

Judgments citing Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat

Renuka G., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 292B

…service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. Page 11 of 13 The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45…

M/S. Micro Spacematrix Solution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…de pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. 21 14. In the light of the above dicta, in the present case, we…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vimal Gupta, New Delhi

In the result the C.O.No

ITA 1211/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle 7 Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room No.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar Ara Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Pan: Aahpg 7807 J &

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 133A

…ent made pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this propsotion we rely upon the case of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y.Narayana Chetty vs. ITO 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC), CIT vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC), and CIT vs. Robert 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceedings was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.” 13.2. Consistent with the decision of the Coordinate Bench of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Vinod Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result the C.O.No

ITA 1603/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle 7 Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room No.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar Ara Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Pan: Aahpg 7807 J &

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 133A

…ent made pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this propsotion we rely upon the case of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y.Narayana Chetty vs. ITO 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC), CIT vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC), and CIT vs. Robert 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceedings was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.” 13.2. Consistent with the decision of the Coordinate Bench of…