Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi

4 SCC 307Supreme Court of India2012#1021 most cited

What is Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi authority for?

Conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function that cannot be granted by consent or by a superior court. Any order or decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, rendering it void, and this issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including in appeal or execution.

106

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi · jurisdiction · legislative function · order without jurisdiction · nullity · void ab initio · procedural defect · objection at any stage · Section 153A · Section 143(3) · Document Identification Number · DIN

Also reported as

2015 SCC OnLine BOM 1686

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 144(b)section 115whsection 124(3)(a)section 115wfsection 115wdsection 115wesection 153cofsection 127(2)(a)section 124(3)section 11bsection 144(3)section 153aof

Judgments citing Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi

Mr Nilesh Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 612/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar/SatishFor Respondent: Shri Murli Mohan
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani impugned reassessment order is bad in law ab initio, being against the express provisions of the Act. In support he relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 to support the above contention where in para 13, Hon‟ble Court observed and held as under: “13. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes order/decree havi…

Neeraj Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Barot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3067/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3067/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Neeraj Kumar Ito Vs. House No. 5, Rana Farm Barot. House, Manshi Vihar, Sector-23, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Dmtpk8828J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 234A

…was assumed erroneously. 9. Further, it is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the roots of the cause and such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceeding including appeal. (Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 and M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT, 2015 SCC Online Bom 1686. 10. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.” 7. Ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Delhi High Court (supra) squarely app…

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 21 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1235/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 21(3)(1), Rupal Kahyap Mehta Income Tax Office, 26/27, A Wing, Ahuja Towers, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Dr. Raja Bhau Desai Road, Vs. Ss Roa Marg, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agrpm5338E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, LdFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…and therefore, the only applicable section to assume the jurisdiction to make a reassessment of income on these facts was the section 153A of the Act. The AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 to support the above contention where in para 13 the following was upheld: “13. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes order/decree having no jurisdictio…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1554/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…fresh on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material available on record it is submitted that the issue of jurisdiction and application of principles of natural justice are not rights which can be waived by the assessee as held by Supreme Court in (2012) 4 SCC 307- Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi as follows:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the ITA Nos.1553 to 1554/Bang/2013 Page 23 of 42 parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes order/d…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1553/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…fresh on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material available on record it is submitted that the issue of jurisdiction and application of principles of natural justice are not rights which can be waived by the assessee as held by Supreme Court in (2012) 4 SCC 307- Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi as follows:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the ITA Nos.1553 to 1554/Bang/2013 Page 23 of 42 parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes order/d…

Gagandeep Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7483/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Gagandeep Singh, Vs Ito, H.No.651, Ff, Sec-10A, Ward-1(5), Near Meenakshi Public School, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Baips1735F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2022

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…efore CIT(A) the same can be raised before Tribunal. The assessee appellant thus prays for admitting this legal grounds of appeal having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 followed by Bom.HC in the case of" CIT- 1, Nagapur Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (2017) 84 taxamnn.com 213." FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee has filed his return of income electronically, on 29.03.2018 declaring an income of Rs.2,060/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S Consortium Nussli Comfort Net

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/63/2022HC Delhi25 Mar 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 124(3)Section 143(2)Section 292B

…re-assessment.” 9. Further, it is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the roots of the cause and such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceeding including appeal. (See: Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 and M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT, 2015 SCC Online Bom 1686. 10. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MARCH 25, 2022/TS This is a digitally sig…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. S.S. Con Build Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/57/2022HC Delhi22 Mar 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 153ASection 68

…seized material. 5. Further, it is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the roots of the cause and such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceeding including appeal. (See: Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 and M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT, 2015 SCC Online Bom 1686. 6. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MARCH 22, 2022 AS This is a digitall…

Hukam Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 375/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 375/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 HUKAM SINGH, vs. ITO, WARD-1, REWARI, REWARI S/O SHRI BUDHA, VPO MAHESWARI, PO DHARUHERA, REWARI HARYANA – 123401 (PAN: COWPS6505Q) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak on the following grounds:- “That the appellant humbly reiterates all the facts and grounds of app…

Bhagwan Sahai, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2019AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 131Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 292Section 54FSection 68

…bjection is taken before the Assessing Officer would not by itself bestow jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer. Such an objection can be taken in appeal also. Moreover, the Apex Court in its recent decision in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi [2012] 4 SCC 307 has held that it is settled position that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and cannot be conferred by consent of petitioner. An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in appeal or execution. Reliance in this regard could usefully be made to Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona [2015] 3 SCC 712. Paras 22 of the sai…

Smt. Vaishali Tushar Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 736/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Smt. Vaishali Tushar Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 735/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Smt. Vaishali Tushar Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 734/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Smt. Vaishali Tushar Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 733/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Smt. Shakuntala R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 732/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Smt. Shakuntala R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 731/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Smt. Shakuntala R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 730/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Smt. Shakuntala R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 729/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Tushar R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 728/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Tushar R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 727/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…