How many judgments cite L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO (41 ITR 12), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 115BBC, Section 12, Section 120, Section 124, Section 127.

L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO

41 ITR 12Supreme Court of India1961#2455 most cited

What is L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO authority for?

The exercise of a power must be referable to a jurisdiction that validates it, not one that would render it nugatory. Provisions concerning the machinery for assessment must be interpreted to make the tax charge effective.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO · section 11 · section 12 · section 115BBC · assessment machinery · effective charge · jurisdiction · validity

Sections most often in play

Section 11 Section 115BBC Section 12 Section 120 Section 124 Section 127 Section 12A Section 12AA

Issues it is cited on

section 158bd section 148(2)section 132(1)section 158b satisfaction note section 158 non-application of mind section 149 documents seized section 153d section 132a unexplained expenditure

Judgments citing L. Hazarimal Kuthalia v. ITO

Sh. Inderjeet Singh Arora, Bathinda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 310/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [Pan: Advpa 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By A Period Of 21 Days. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Petition Dated 06/8/2016 By The Assessee Is The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, Served On His Counsel, Sh.Pankaj Arora, On 17/2/2014, In Time. The Explanation Appears Bona Fide & The Delay Cannot Be Said To Be Substantial. The Delay Was Accordingly Condoned & The Hearing In The Matter Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Das (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…e addition being squarely covered by sec. 69A, or even non-mention of a section is, under the circumstances, and even as observed by the Bench during hearing, of no consequence in terms of the trite law [refer, inter alia, L. Hazari Mal Kathulia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC); Isha Beevi v. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 (SC); Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H); and CIT v. Hargopal Bhalla & Sons [1971] 82 ITR 243 (P&H)]. On merits, the AO in the remand report (PB pgs. 29-30) clearly states that no evidence as to the housing loan from Citi Bank (or any other institution for that 4 Inderjeet Singh Arora v. ITO ma…

M/S Parmeshwari Hansraj Jain Khanga Dogra Trust, Ludhiana vs. CIT (Examption), Chandigarh

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/ASR/2017[0]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Feb 2018

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 220(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: [Pan: Aactp 4714A]

For Appellant: Sh. Hari Om Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur (D.R.)

Section 12Section 12A

…mpugned order, passed without observing the due process of law, is procedurally deficient, constituting an irregularity. The same therefore would warrant a restoration back to the stage at which the irregularity had occurred (Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC)). There is, it needs to be appreciated, no vested right in procedure (CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup [1994] 210 ITR 886 (SC)). We, accordingly, setting aside the impugned order, direct the disposal of the assessee’s application by the competent authority in accordance with law, even as was by the Tribunal in Ameliorating India (supra), whose orde…

M/S Horizon Builders & Developers, Amritsar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed

ITA 400/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A Nos.399&400(Asr)/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2009-10 Pan: Aaefh 5966J

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur (D.R)

Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…one section is specified in preference to another; the assessee, in either case, being required to explain the source for meeting the expenditure, deeming the same as income where not satisfactorily explained. As explained in Hazurimal Kuthiala v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdiction which confers validity upon it and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. In the facts of that case, it was therefore held by the Hon'ble Court that the order of the Commissioner was not invalid merely because it was not made under the Patiala Act. Rather, in the fact…

M/S Horizon Builders & Developers, Amritsar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed

ITA 399/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A Nos.399&400(Asr)/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2009-10 Pan: Aaefh 5966J

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur (D.R)

Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Daewon Kang Up Co. Limited, Thiruvallur vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 818/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita N0.818/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Muruga Boopathy, Jt. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 2Section 3Section 9(1)(vii)

…be bad in law, to which no sanction in law could be given. Omission on the part of the AO to follow the mandatory procedure could not be said to be a procedural irregularity, which could be cured. The Revenue’s reliance on L.Hazuri Mal Kuthiala v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC) was found misplaced as in that case an omission by the AO to consult the Central Board of the Revenue upon passing, similarly, a draft assessment order u/s. 5(3) of the Patiala Act was considered as merely directory and not mandatory. In the present case, the Hon’ble Court held that the procedure was mandatory, and the AO had no jurisdiction t…

Amish R. Kapadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(30(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Amish R. Kapadia Ito, Ward – 12(3)(2), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion, Madam Kama Road, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk 4127 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirendra M. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. R. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.5.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2010, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 31.3.2009. The Only Issue In Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), Levied In The Sum Of Rs.6,08,170/-, I.E., At The Minimum Rate Of 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. R. Singh

Section 271(1)(c)

…t admission of the said provision, which mandates for the deeming of the impugned deposit as income where not satisfactorily explained as to its source, being applicable. Further, as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), the exercise of power by an authority is referable to a provision that validates it rather than one which makes it unworkable or invalid. The non-mention, or reference to a wrong, section/provision would thus not operate to invalidate otherwise valid proceedings or exercise of power – the assessee being called upon to explain the source of th…

Atulkumar Rajkumar Agarwal, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7374/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7374/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atulkumar Rajkumar Agarwal Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ 203, Rajkar Bhavan, Sector 17, Mumbai Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aanpa 3025 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. P. Chhajed ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. S. Bist सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 01.09.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008- 09 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2010. 2. Per Ground 1, Reproduced As Under, The Assessee Raises The Issue Of The Order U/S.143(3) Without Issue Of Notice U/S.143(2) And, Thus, The Impugned Assessment, As Bad In Law:

For Appellant: Shri M. P. ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…sistance to the assessee. It is even otherwise trite law that the exercise of a power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory (refer: L. Hazarimal Kuthiala vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC)). As long as, therefore, the action of the A.O. has the sanction of law, it could matter little if he does not refer to the appropriate provision; the provisions of section 68 and sections 69/69A being even otherwise cognate provisions. The assessee’s principal contention on merits is of the same being deposited from cash-in-hand. The same has…