Karti P. Chidambaram v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

402 ITR 488High Court2018#10599 most cited

What is Karti P. Chidambaram v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai authority for?

An assessment order passed without disposing of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order is unjustified. The assessment framed by the AO cannot be sustained if objections are not dealt with.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Karti P. Chidambaram · reopening of assessment · section 148 · objections to reopening · speaking order · disposal of objections · assessment order unjustified · AO cannot sustain assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 153CSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 10(1)

Issues it is cited on

period of holdingsection 148(2)live linkborrowed satisfactionprincipal commissioner of income-taxtangible materialreopening of assessmentescapement of incomecommissioner (appeals)reason to believecross objectionincome-tax officer

Judgments citing Karti P. Chidambaram v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…g order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” 3.2. Similar issue has been laid down by the Hon'ble Madrass High Court in case of Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [2018] 402 ITR 488 (Madras)/[2018 wherein it has been held that the assessment order passed without disposing off the assessee’s objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order was unjustified. ITA Nos. 2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 3.3. Therefore even, for this reason of non disposal of…

Sushil Mitruka, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…g order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” 3.2. Similar issue has been laid down by the Hon'ble Madrass High Court in case of Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [2018] 402 ITR 488 (Madras)/[2018 wherein it has been held that the assessment order passed without disposing off the assessee’s objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order was unjustified. ITA Nos. 2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 3.3. Therefore even, for this reason of non disposal of…

Sushil Mitruka, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” 3. 2. Similar issue has been laid down by the Hon'ble Madrass High Court in case of Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [2018] 402 ITR 488 (Madras)/[2018 wherein it has been held that the assessment order passed without disposing off the assessee's objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order was unjustified. Page 7 ITA Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 3. 3. Therefore even, for this reason of non disp…

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…g order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” 3.2. Similar issue has been laid down by the Hon'ble Madrass High Court in case of Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [2018] 402 ITR 488 (Madras)/[2018 wherein it has been held that the assessment order passed without disposing off the assessee’s objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order was unjustified. ITA Nos. 2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 3.3. Therefore even, for this reason of non disposal of…

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…'ble Supreme Court, then it has to be necessarily held to be an order without jurisdiction. The law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court is a binding character and is a source of law and to itself which will bind all authorities. iii) Kirti P Chidambaram (2018) 402 ITR 488 (Mad) Allowing the petition the Court held that , since reassessment order was passed without disposing of assessee’s objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order, same was unjustified. Court also held that where claim of assessee of exemption of income under section 10(1) on proceeds from sale of coffee subjected to…

Devki Nandan Bindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4271/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

…T and Another (2012) 340 ITR 144 (Mad.) held that “reasons for notice must specify that there was failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.” 5.4. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Karti P. Chidambaram & Others vs. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488 (Mad.) observed that “When original assessment passed after scrutiny, granting exemption - Notice after four years on the ground that claim for exemption was not examined properly - No failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.” 5.5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avtec Ltd., vs. DCIT (2017) 395 ITR 434 (Del.)…

Kuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 580/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 153CSection 68

…the action of 147 is bad in law. a. Jyanti Lal Shah Vs UOI 378 ITR 596(B0M) b. Meta Plast Engeineering Vs ITO –ITA No-5780/Del/2014 c. Kamlash Goel A Bench- ITA No 5730 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017 d. KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-402 ITR 488 (Mad) e. Conclave publisher Vs Union of India and ors-W.P No-284 of 2019- dated 01.02.2019 27. It is next submitted that the AO has categorically mentioned that Commission u/s 131(1)(d) was issued, during the course of assessment proceedings of Kuber Group of Companies, however no such entity is in existence in law. Therefore there is complete n…

Kuber Food Products India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 322/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 153CSection 68

…the action of 147 is bad in law. a. Jyanti Lal Shah Vs UOI 378 ITR 596(B0M) b. Meta Plast Engeineering Vs ITO –ITA No-5780/Del/2014 c. Kamlash Goel A Bench- ITA No 5730 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017 d. KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-402 ITR 488 (Mad) e. Conclave publisher Vs Union of India and ors-W.P No-284 of 2019- dated 01.02.2019 27. It is next submitted that the AO has categorically mentioned that Commission u/s 131(1)(d) was issued, during the course of assessment proceedings of Kuber Group of Companies, however no such entity is in existence in law. Therefore there is complete n…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2846/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. KLA Foods (India) Ltd., 21/3GF, Geeta The DCIT, Rohtak Circle, vs., Mandir Marg, Near Rohtak. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. PAN AACCK8299G (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.333/Del./2015 Arising out of ITA.No.2846/Del./2015 - Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. KLA Foods (India) Ltd., 21/3GF, Geeta The DCIT, Rohtak Circle, Mandir Marg, Near vs., Rohtak. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. PAN AACCK8299G (Cross Object…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2846/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. KLA Foods (India) Ltd., 21/3GF, Geeta The DCIT, Rohtak Circle, vs., Mandir Marg, Near Rohtak. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. PAN AACCK8299G (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.333/Del./2015 Arising out of ITA.No.2846/Del./2015 - Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. KLA Foods (India) Ltd., 21/3GF, Geeta The DCIT, Rohtak Circle, Mandir Marg, Near vs., Rohtak. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. PAN AACCK8299G (Cross Object…

Karti P. Chidambaram v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (402 ITR 488) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax