Khandubhai Vasanji Desai and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

236 ITR 73High Court1999#9565 most cited

What is Khandubhai Vasanji Desai and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax authority for?

An Assessing Officer must promptly initiate proceedings under Section 158BD after forming satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to a third party. While promptness is relative to the circumstances, unreasonable delay can vitiate the assessment.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Khandubhai Vasanji Desai · Section 158BD · Section 132 · Section 132A · block assessment · undisclosed income · satisfaction · prompt action · reasonable period · delay in notice

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdsection 158bcblock periodsection 158bsection 158documents seizedsection 132aundisclosed incomesearch and seizuresection 132section 15section 13

Judgments citing Khandubhai Vasanji Desai and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/CHANDI/1996[01/04/1985 to 17/07/1995]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025
For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158B

…ent. No doubt once satisfaction is formed during block assessment of searched person, action must be promptly taken as submitted on behalf of the assessee and as held by the Gujarat High Court in Khandubhai Vasanji Desai and others Vs. DCIT and another (1999) 236 ITR 73. Whether or not action was prompt depends upon circumstances of each case." 14. In the present case, the notices were issued to about 70 persons on the documents seized from the Bhatia Group. The Assessing Officer, therefore, had to take action against the 70 persons on account of the same search operation under Section 132 of the Act. He could no…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sudhir Dhingra

The appeals are partly allowed in the

ITA/287/2009HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 260A

…ection 158BD was issued only on 10.07.2003. The ITAT held that the satisfaction was recorded belatedly and that the notice was consequently bad. The assessee had relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Khandubhai Vasanji Desai & Others v. DCIT 236 ITR 73, where it was reasoned that a period of 60 days may be considered reasonable for issue of notice from the date of satisfaction recorded by the A.O. of searched persons. The ITAT‟s impugned order held that; “6. …In the present case, the satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer of M/s Friends Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 13.02.2003 whe…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sudhir Dhingra

The appeals are partly allowed in the

ITA-287/2009HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 260A

…ection 158BD was issued only on 10.07.2003. The ITAT held that the satisfaction was recorded belatedly and that the notice was consequently bad. The assessee had relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Khandubhai Vasanji Desai & Others v. DCIT 236 ITR 73, where it was reasoned that a period of 60 days may be considered reasonable for issue of notice from the date of satisfaction recorded by the A.O. of searched persons. The ITAT‟s impugned order held that; “6. …In the present case, the satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer of M/s Friends Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 13.02.2003 whe…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Xiii vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal

ITA - 582 / 2008HC Delhi30 May 2011

…arwal was completed on 29.8.2002 but the notice to the respondent-assessee under Section 158BD was issued only on 22.3.2004, i.e., after 19 months later. The tribunal placing reliance on the decision in Khandubhai Vasanji Desai and others v. DCIT, (1999) 236 ITR 73 (Gujarat) came to hold that notice was issued well beyond a reasonable period. 9. Being of the aforesaid view, the tribunal set aside the order of assessment, which had been concurred with by the first appellate authority, and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 10. Regard being had to the questions framed, we are only required to…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VI vs. Tushar Stock & Share Brokers P. Ltd

ITA/572/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…under Section 158BC was issued to the assessees only on 22nd October, 1999 and that being highly belated, the proceedings initiated under Section 158BD of the Act are untenable in law. In this regard he relied upon Khandubhai Vasanji and others v. CIT, 236 ITR 73. I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 19 of 30 18. With regard to the additions of Rs.10,80,000/- on account of share capital in the case of Tushar, he submitted that the same was duly recorded in the books of accounts and the addition was rightly held as untenable by the Tribunal. He also submitted tha…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Xiii vs. Mittal Consul & Co

ITA/1277/2007HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…under Section 158BC was issued to the assessees only on 22nd October, 1999 and that being highly belated, the proceedings initiated under Section 158BD of the Act are untenable in law. In this regard he relied upon Khandubhai Vasanji and others v. CIT, 236 ITR 73. I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 19 of 30 18. With regard to the additions of Rs.10,80,000/- on account of share capital in the case of Tushar, he submitted that the same was duly recorded in the books of accounts and the addition was rightly held as untenable by the Tribunal. He also submitted tha…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Xiii vs. R.K.Mittal

ITA/928/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…under Section 158BC was issued to the assessees only on 22nd October, 1999 and that being highly belated, the proceedings initiated under Section 158BD of the Act are untenable in law. In this regard he relied upon Khandubhai Vasanji and others v. CIT, 236 ITR 73. I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 19 of 30 18. With regard to the additions of Rs.10,80,000/- on account of share capital in the case of Tushar, he submitted that the same was duly recorded in the books of accounts and the addition was rightly held as untenable by the Tribunal. He also submitted tha…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VI vs. Tushar Stock & Share Brokers P. Ltd

ITA - 572 / 2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 132ASection 158B

…under Section 158BC was issued to the assessees only on 22nd October, 1999 and that being highly belated, the proceedings initiated under Section 158BD of the Act are untenable in law. In this regard he relied upon Khandubhai Vasanji and others v. CIT, 236 ITR 73. 2011:DHC:1789-DB I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 19 of 30 18. With regard to the additions of Rs.10,80,000/- on account of share capital in the case of Tushar, he submitted that the same was duly recorded in the books of accounts and the addition was rightly held as untenable by the Tribunal. He a…

C.I.T vs. Dawn View Farms Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1187/2008HC Delhi16 Oct 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr Amit Dayal
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

…ITA No. 1187 of 2008 Page 1 of 13 REPORTRABLE * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 16.10.2008 + ITA No. 1187/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-IV, NEW DELHI ...... Appellant -versus- DAWN VIEW FARMS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms Prem Lata Bansal For the Respondent : Mr Amit Dayal CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed…

C.I.T vs. Dawn View Farms Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1187 / 2008HC Delhi16 Oct 2008
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr Amit Dayal
Section 132Section 158BSection 260A

…ITA No. 1187 of 2008 Page 1 of 13 REPORTRABLE * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 16.10.2008 + ITA No. 1187/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-IV, NEW DELHI ...... Appellant -versus- DAWN VIEW FARMS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms Prem Lata Bansal For the Respondent : Mr Amit Dayal CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed…

Manish Maheshwari vs. Asstt.Commnr.of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-000924-000924 - 2007Supreme Court23 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
Section 131Section 132Section 142Section 158BSection 2(31)Section 260Section 69

…A large number of decisions of various High Courts have been cited at the bar. We would, at the outset, refer to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Khandubhai Vasanji Desai and Others v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another [(1999) 236 ITR 73]. Therein, it was clearly held : "This provision indicates that where the Assessing Officer who is seized of the matter and has jurisdiction over the person other than the person with respect to whom search was made under s. 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under s. 132A, he shall pr…

Khandubhai Vasanji Desai and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (236 ITR 73) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax