Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Smt. Prakash Wanti

5 SCC 159Reported decision1995#18077 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Smt. Prakash Wanti

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 124Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 234

…el for Revenue that participation of Assessee before Jurisdictional A.O. would operate as acquiescence or waiver and will not invalidate proceedings is thoroughly misconceived. 50. In Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal Vs. Smt. Prakash Wanti and another (1995) 5 SCC 159, Court said that acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction and erroneous interpretation should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate defeating of legislative animation. Sri Annesh, Udupi Page 38 of 40 51. In Abdul Qayume Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 (184) ITR 404, Court said "an admission or an acquiescence cannot be a foundation fo…

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

…ansport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow &Ors. AIR 1986 All. 132; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak &Anr., AIR 1988 SC 1531; Union of India &Anr. V. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96; Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Prakash Wanti (Smt.) (Dead) &Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 159; U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1373; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664; Kesar Singh &Ors. V. Sadhu, (1996) 7 SCC 711; Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213; and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) (P) Ltd., Kanpur, AIR…

ANIL KUMAR KHADELWAL(HUF),BAREIILY vs. ITO-1(1), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Khandelwal(Huf) V. The Ito 1(1) 39, Moar Kothi, Gangapur Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacha2002E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Dated 15.3.2022, For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because No Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued By The Ito-1(1), Bareilly-New, Being The Income-Tax Authority Vested With The Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The Appellant, The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed By The Said Income-Tax Authority Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction & Consequently The Said Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Bad In Law & Thus Was Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Because Even If It Is Held That The Acit-1, Bareilly Was Validly Vested With The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer On The Date Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 24.09.2018 Then Also The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Cannot Be Held To Be Legally Valid As The Same Was Not Passed By The Acit-1, Bareilly Who Initiated The Regular Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 24.09.2018. Page 2 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani D.R

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Khandelwal(HUF) v. The ITO 1(1) 39, Moar Kothi, Gangapur Bareilly Bareilly TAN/PAN:AACHA2002E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani D.R. Date of hearing: 12 07 2022 Date of pronouncement: 21 07 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 15.3.2022, for Assessment Year 2017- 18, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act wa…

SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHAH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(5), KANPUR

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

ITA 319/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2013-14 Devendra Kumar Shah, Ito -3(5), Vs. Kanpur - 208001 701 Urvashi Apartment, 7/292, Tilak Nagar, Kapur - 208002 Pan – Abmps 9132J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…sel for Revenue that participation of Assessee before Jurisdictional A.O. would operate as acquiescence or waiver and will not invalidate proceedings is thoroughly misconceived. 45. In Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal Vs. Smt. Prakash Wanti and another (1995) 5 SCC 159, Court said that acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction and erroneous interpretation should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate defeating of legislative animation. 46. In Abdul Qayume Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 (184) ITR 404, Court said "an admission or an acquiescence cannot be a foundation for assessment where the income is…

SHRI RAMESH MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Mishra V. Dy. Cit 5/863, Viram Khand Range-6 Gomti Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Agjpm3967B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow, Dated 29/8/2018, Confirming The Assessing Officer’S Action In Making The Addition Of Rs.3.45 Lakhs, Comprising Of Rs.3.15 Lakhs Paid As Stamp Duty & Rs.30,000/- Paid In Cash, On Purchase Of A Residential Property. The Following Are The Grounds Raised: 1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The "Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-6, Lucknow (In Short "Dy. Cit"), Was Validly Vested With Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The "Appellant" & On That Basis In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2015. 2. Because There Being No Valid Transfer Of Jurisdiction From Income-Tax Officer-1(3), Lucknow To "Dy. Cit", As Per Provisions Of Law, The Reassessment Order Passed By The Latter Was Without Jurisdiction & Consequently The Re-Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Illegal. 3. Because Even If It Is Held That The "Dy. Cit" Was Vested With The Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The "Appellant"

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…sel for Revenue that participation of Assessee before Jurisdictional A.O. would operate as acquiescence or waiver and will not invalidate proceedings is thoroughly misconceived. 50. In Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal Vs. Smt. Prakash Wanti and another (1995) 5 SCC 159, Court said that acquiescence does not confer Jurisdiction and erroneous interpretation should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate defeating of legislative animation. 51. In Abdul Qayume Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 (184) ITR 404, Court said "an admission or an acquiescence cannot be a foundation for assessment where the income is…