Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 10A, Section 143(2).

Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO

Q: How many judgments cite Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO (63 ITR 638), spanning 2009 to 2026.

63 ITR 638Supreme Court of India1967#3812 most cited

What is Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO authority for?

In proceedings challenging the reopening of an assessment, the High Court's role is limited to examining whether the conditions for reopening existed, not to make a final decision on the merits of the disclosure. A mistake in a notice, such as non-indication of the penalty limb, will not invalidate penalty proceedings if no prejudice is caused to the assessee and they are aware of the charges.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · reopening of assessment · change of opinion · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty proceedings · notice defect · prejudice to assessee · opportunity of hearing

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 10A Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 144C(3)

Issues it is cited on

mere change of opinion section 292b furnishing inaccurate particulars of income section 274 furnishing inaccurate particulars change of opinion levy of penalty section 271(1)escapement of income reopening of assessment section 271 section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons. v. First AddllTO

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…notice, it is even otherwise well-settled, only amounts to an irregularity, and is not a jurisdictional defect. As explained in Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), with reference to the decision in Kantamani Vankata Narayana & Sons vs. ITO (First Addl.) [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC), a mistake in the notice does not invalidate penalty proceedings (at pg. 757). All these decisions were brought to the notice of Shri Arora, the ld. counsel, during hearing to, however, no substantive response. It is not considered necessary to, in view of the inapplicability of the strike off in the facts of the case, dwell further in the ma…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…pose for which the notice u/s. 274 is, in the context of the case, issued. That a defect in the notice, i.e., assuming so, does not invalidate the proceedings stands clarified by the Apex Court in Kantamani Vankata Narayana & Sons vs. ITO (First Addl.) [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC), noted in Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (supra). All these decisions, it may be noted, are prior to the insertion of s. 292B on the statute-book, which provision, it would be seen, is itself in harmony with the law as clarified by the Apex Court in the afore-cited cases, which also explains reference thereto in this order. The nature of the notice…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…f income. A defective notice, even assuming so, would not defeat the proceedings. The law in the matter is trite, toward which reliance stands placed before me by the Revenue on the decision in Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons vs. First Additional ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC) (copy on record). The facts of the said case are telling, though it may not be necessary to recount them here, where the intent is to give an overview of the matter. The decision is under the 1922 Act, even as the notice under the Act, even if construed as defective, is protected u/s. 292B of the Act. In fact, on this precise issue, i.e., the…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. A.J. Buildcon P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

…ended period of limitation for action in cases where the escapement arises out of the failure on the part of the assesses to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary law assessment." 24 13 In Kantamani Venkata Naryana & Sons vs. Addl. ITO (1967 ) 63 ITR 638 (SC), the apex Court held that in proceedings under Art 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the jurisdiction of the ITO to issue a notice for reopening the assessment, the High Court was only concerned with examining whether the conditions which invested the ITO with the powers to reopen the assessment existed. It is not, observed the Cou…

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…eteness of the discussion in the matter, advert to the legal aspect of the matter, having been examined by the Hon’ble Courts. In CIT v. Mithila Motors [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat), relying on the decision in Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons vs. Addl. ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC), wherein it was clarified that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings, it was held that even granting that the notice u/s. 274 was defective or bad in law, the penalty proceedings would not fail as no prejudice had been caused to the assessee; the head notes of the decision reading as: (pg. 756) ‘Under s. 274 of t…

Goldtex Furnishing Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Shri Deepesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80HSection 80I

…istinction in is established. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind mind.”(emphasis supplied). mind mind 2.6 The reliance is placed on the ratio of Judgment of Hon’ble SC in case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons v. Addl. ITO, Rajahmundry [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it has been held that the assessee does not discharge his duty to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment for the assessment year in question by merely producing book account or other evidence. He has to bring to the notice of the Assessing Officer particular items in the books of account or portions of docume…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…losure, another decision in Sheo Nath Singh 82 ITR 147 (SC), Bhagwan Industrial Pvt. Ltd. 31 STC 293 (SC), Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs ITO 236 ITR 34, Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. vs ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Kantamani Venkata Narain & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC), Malagaon Electricity Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs Manoranjan Pictures Corporation 228 ITR 202 (Del.) and various other decisions as mentioned in the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.6. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. If the observation made in the assess…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5611/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) DCIT, Central Circle 4, vs. M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi. 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN No. AAACD0132H) ITA No.5581/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4, 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAACD0132H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA REVE…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dcm Limited

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 987 / 2007HC Delhi13 Jan 2009

…he fact that all important 2009:DHC:57-DB various units and that there were common marketing facilities for all textile units. The Tribunal upon application of the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Prithvi Insurance Co; (1967) 63 ITR 638 and Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd vs CIT; 77 ITR 739 (SC), came to the conclusion that there was inter-connection, inter-lacing and unity of control and management, common decision making mechanism and use of common funds in respect of all four units. It repelled the arguments of the Revenue, which was, once again pressed before us for c…

C.I.T vs. D.C.M. Ltd

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA/987/2007HC Delhi13 Jan 2009