How many judgments cite Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt (334 ITR 25), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B, Section 142(1), Section 143(3).

Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt

334 ITR 25High Court2011#2592 most cited

What is Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt authority for?

The date of issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act is reckoned not from the date it was issued by the authority, but from the date it was actually delivered to the assessee.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt · 334 ITR 25 · 12 Taxmann.com 198 · Section 148 notice · date of issuance · notice delivery · reassessment proceedings · Section 147 · Section 149 · validity of notice · limitation period

Also reported as

12 Taxmann.com 198

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 144 Section 144B Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 149 Section 250

Issues it is cited on

impermissible avoidance arrangement section 245h section 245ha warrant of authorisation section 245c section 153(2a)section 153(c)section 90a section 202 section 245d section 144ba section 142a

Judgments citing Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Achu Traders, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 357/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

…acts of the appeal before us in the instant case. ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 26 -: 8. Similarly in the context of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) vs Hiren Bhatt reported in 334 ITR 25 (Guj) had held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was dated 31.3.2010 but was sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 07.04.2010. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that considering the definition of the word ‘issue’ , it is apparent that merely signing the notices on 31.03.2010, cannot be equated with issuance of notice as contemplated…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Achu Traders, Palakkad

ITA 356/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

…period would be squarely applicable to the facts of the appeal before us in the instant case. 8. Similarly in the context of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) vs Hiren Bhatt reported in 334 ITR 25 (Guj) had held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was dated 31.3.2010 but was sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 07.04.2010. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that considering the definition of the word 'issue', it is apparent that merely signing the notices on 31.03.2010, cannot be equated with issuance of notice as contemplated…

Shri. Rahul Udayashankar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 869/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 11Section 143Section 250Section 69A

…ficer 190 ITR 464 (Ker). e. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Kappumalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker). f. Shanthilal Godawat Et others Vs. ACIT, ITAT, Jodhpur Bench (2009) 30 DTR 413. g. Kanubhai M.Patel (HUF) Vs. Hiren Bhatt or his successors to office 334 ITR 25 (Guj). h. Government wood workshop v. State of Kerala (1998) 69 STC 62. i. State of Punjab V. Khemi Ram AIR 1970 SC 214. 11.7 In view of the above submissions, the Assessee submits that the assessment order is barred by limitation and not in terms of provisions of Section 153 of the Act and consequently the assessment order passed u/s. 143[3] of t…

M/S. Stl Overseas (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stl Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata Room No. 316, 3Rd Floor, 12, Vs. Amartolla Street, Kolkata-700001. Pan: Aadcs 5333 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar Respondent By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Swatee Baid, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 149

…be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words a mere attempt at compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance with those factors which are considered as essential.” 12. In Kanubhai M. Patel v. Hiren Bhatt and others [(2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj)], it was held by the Gujarat High Court that “date of issuance of 6 M/s. STL Overseas Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 notice under Section 148 Income Tax Act has to be reckoned not from the date when it was issued, but on the date when it was actually delivered on the assessee”. The relevant paragraphs of the same are profitably extracted below: "13…

Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit, Opg House, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi – 110 002. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1081C

For Appellant: Ms Somya Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeswari R, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…eriod would be squarely applicable to the facts of the appeal before us in the instant case. 8. Similarly in the context of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanubhai M Patel (HUF) vs Hiren Bhatt reported in 334 ITR 25 (Guj) had held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was dated 31.3.2010 but was sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 07.04.2010. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that considering the definition of the word ‘issue’ , it is apparent that merely signing the notices on 31.03.2010, 6 cannot be equated with issuance of notice as contempla…

Alka Chaturvedi, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

The appeals are allowed and the impugned demand on the basis of non-est orders is quashed

ITA 2488/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2486/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Abhimanyu Chaturvedi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D-64, Sector 47, Income Tax, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Central Circle-I, Noida Noida- 201303 Pan : Anqpc4031N Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 271Section 69ASection 69C

…o. 522 of 2007 dated 13.03.2008, CAGIT Vs. Kappumalai Estate (1998) 234 ITR 187 (Ker.), Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 (Ker) and CIT & Anr. Vs. BJN Hotels Ltd. [2016] 382 ITR 110 (Karn), Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) V Hiren Bhatt (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj.) to submit that if the assessment order are not served before time barring date of assessment then they are considered to be non-est. Reliance in this regard was also placed on the Tribunal order in ITA No. 3556 & 3557/Del/2015 order dated 08.02.2019 in the case of Pankaj Sharma vs. DCIT and ITA No. 415 & 421/CTK/2019 in Sujata Panda, The X-…

Mallika Chaturvedi, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

The appeals are allowed and the impugned demand on the basis of non-est orders is quashed

ITA 2487/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 271Section 69ASection 69C

Abhimanyu Chaturvedi, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

The appeals are allowed and the impugned demand on the basis of non-est orders is quashed

ITA 2486/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 271Section 69ASection 69C

Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

…ond the period of limitation provided under the concerned provisions of law, more so when such orders cannot be taken as orders made in the manner as has been understood by a higher forum.  Kanubhai M. Patel [HUF] Vs. Hiren Bhatt or his successors to office 334 ITR 25 [Guj];  Government Wood Workshop v. State of Kerala [1998] 69 STC 62;  State of Punjab Vs. Khemi Ram AIR 1970 SC 214; Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore Page 15 of 25  CIT Vs. BJN Hotels, 382 ITR 110 [Kar]. 3.16 The ld AR further submitted that a copy of the impugned penalty order was provided personally to the authorised representative of the…

Shri Kirodi Mal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 883/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Javed Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…smissed this ground of appeal without proper adjudication. 11 Shri Kirodi Mal vs. ITO Kind attention of the Hon’ble bench is invited to the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Kanu Bhai M patel (HUF) V. Hiren Bhatt &ors. reported in (2011) 334 ITR 25 (GUJ), wherein it has been held as under: 15. The expression "issue" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "To send forth; to emit; to promulgate; as, an officer issues orders, process issues from court. To put into circulation; as, the treasury issues notes. To send out, to send out officially; to deliver, for use, or authoritativel…

Benco Finance & Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2092/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 68

…td. vs. ACIT (Central)- 2, Raipur (2018) 94 taxmann. Com 95 (Chattisgarh). Further, the ld. A.R by drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) Vs. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj) submitted, that the Hon‘ble High Court had observed that the date of issue of notice u/s 148 would be the date on which the same was handed over for service to the proper officer, which in the facts of the case would be the date on which the said notices were actually handed over to the post office for the purpose of effecting service on the…

Yogi Properties (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9651/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 68

…post with the SPA number ED481673181IN not before 1/4/2017, even going by the version of the learned Assessing Officer for the time being. Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanubhai M Patel vs. Hiren Bhatt 334 ITR 25 (Guj) and submitted that for the purpose of reckoning the limitation in respect of the reassessment notice, mere signing of notice is not sufficient, but the date of issue would be the date on which the notice was handed over for service to the proper officer. Inasmuch as there is no trustworthy evidence to show that the notice was in fact dispatc…

B.R. Arora & Associates (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3504/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2010-11

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…eclared null and void. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanubahi M. Patel (HUF) vs. Hiren Bhattr or His Successors to office and others dated 13.7.2010 (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj.). As regards the merits of the case Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the lower authorities wrongly upheld the addition in dispute to the extent of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act for the share capital and share premium. He finally stated that the AO has made the addition of Rs. 2,47,50,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act alongwith the comm…

Neotech Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5140/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.3.2017; Booked with India Post Indraprastha HQ dated 1.4.2017 timing 10.18.59 vide speed post no. ED539828587N; Delivered on 7.4.2017; Kunal M. Patel (HUF) vs. Hiren Bhatt or his successors to office & ors. (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj.); Reasons recorded dated 30.3.2017; Objections to notice u/s. 148 dated 11.10.2017 before AO; order disposing the objections dated 6.11.2017; Confirmation of account and ledger account of Birch Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. for the AY 2010-11; Bank Certificate alongwith bank statement showing receipt and payment of Rs. 25 lacs to Birch Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…tched after 31.03.2013, therefore, the assessment should be quashed being passed beyond the period of limitation under section 153 of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanu Bhai M. Patel (HUF) vs. Hiren Bhatt, 334 ITR 25 (Guj), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the date of issue would be the date on which the same was handed over for service to the proper officer. Therefore, when last day of limitation for issuance of notice is 31.03.2010 and the same was sent for dispatch in the speed post centre on 7th April 2010, the da…

Mr.Venkatareddy Manjunath, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 798/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. A.Y. APPELLANT(S) VS. RESPONDENT(S) 798/Bang/2018 2008-09 Mr. Venkatareddy The Assistant Manjunath, Commissioner of No.1, 7th Floor, Income Tax, Vokkaliga Bhavan, Circle 5(2)(1), Hudson Circle, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. PAN: AFSPM 0587R 741/Bang/2018 2008-09 Dr. V. Sudarshini, The Income Tax # 1324, Sobha Dew Officer, Flower Apartments, Ward 5(3)(2), Sarakki Main Road, Bengaluru. 4th Cross, J.P. Nagar 1st Phase, Bengaluru – 560 078. PAN: ADCPV 3784B 12…

Dr. V. Sudarshini, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 741/BANG/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

Smt B A Indiramma, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1203/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Accurex Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1783/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S Accurex Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 5Th Floor, Unit No.250, Block-3, Tribhuwan Complex, Iswar Nagar, New Delhi-110 Chowringhee Sq., 065. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aacca 1330 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwary, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…us by the assessee. The ld. AR drew our attention to the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision on a similar issue wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decided in the case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office and Others [2011] 334 ITR 25(Guj) wherein the Revenue’s case was that Assessing Officer had issued the notice on 31.03.2010 (that is the last date for issue of notice). However, the Hon’ble High Court noted that the notice was sent to the Speed Post Office only on 07.04.2010. So, the Hon’ble High court held that the issue date of notice by Assessing Officer has to be taken as…

Emson Tools Mfg Corp Ltd, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaemson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T.,(Cc-I), D-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaace3698M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit GargFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e order of Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, despite the fact that:- i) notice u/s 148 was issued after 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, hence it was time barred as held in case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) vs. Hiren Bhatt 334 ITR 25 (Guj.). In this it was held that date of issue of notice would be date on which notice was actually handed over to post office for purpose of effecting service on assessee.” 6. The Ld. counsel for assessee, during the course of hearing before us, drew our attention to his submissions made before the CIT(A) in this regard reproduced at para 1(a)…