M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT

48 ITR 34Supreme Court of India1963#4368 most cited

What is M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT authority for?

Natural justice, including the right to a reasonable opportunity of being heard, must be afforded to the assessee, especially when a rectification order enhances the assessment.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT · SC · 1963 · section 154 · section 35 · rectification · enhancement of assessment · notice · hearing · audi alteram partem · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 139(1)Section 155Section 155(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 186section 148(d)section 116audi alteram partemmat creditsection 155rectification u/s 154protective assessmentapproval under section 151section 18order under section 148a(d)section 35

Judgments citing M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT

THE TAMIL NADU DR AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY,CHENNIA vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 1, CHENNAI

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

ITA 833/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:833/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Tamil Nadu Dr. The Income Tax Officer Ambedkar Law University, Vs. (Exemptions), No.5, Poompozhil Campus, Ward 1, Dr. Dgs Dinakaran Salai, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadat 3528N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune Order Dated 27.01.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250

…liver the notice for AY 2018-19 before passing the rectification order for all the captioned Assessment Years. For such a proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT reported in (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is more so in this case, where the proviso to section 35 itself makes it incumbent upon the ITO to give notice and hearing to assessee when the effect of the rectification would be the enhancement of the assessment [section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 is noted to be pari materia with that of…

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 5069/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ice which in an essential condition for all tax authorities to complied with before passing any adverse order as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and apex courts as well. Some of the cases are: M. Chockalingam and M. Meyyappan v. CIT, Madras, (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC) and (Rameshwaram Paper Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. & others (2009) 11 VLJ 33 (All); Padam Traders & others u. State of U.P. & others (2009) 47 STJ 392 (All)), Ram Chander u. Union of India & Ors. 1986 SCC (4) 12 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT AIR 1955 (SC) 65: 27 ITR 126 (SC) 4. Further, there was complete lack of application of…

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

ITA 5068/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5067 to 5069/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 to 2017-18 Jagmohan Singh Bedi Vs. ITO, Ward- 70(1) 562, Gali No.2, West Guru Delhi Angad Nagar Laxmi Nagar, Delhi PAN No.AOPPB6368F Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA Respondent Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 28.01.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.Commissioner of I…

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

ITA 5067/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5067 to 5069/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 to 2017-18 Jagmohan Singh Bedi Vs. ITO, Ward- 70(1) 562, Gali No.2, West Guru Delhi Angad Nagar Laxmi Nagar, Delhi PAN No.AOPPB6368F Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA Respondent Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 28.01.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.Commissioner of I…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…and all relevant documents before he is called upon to lead evidence in\nrebuttal. This right has not been taken away by any express provision of the Income Tax Act.\nFurthermore, Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Chockalingam and M. Meyyappan Vs. CIT, Madras\n(1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC) has observed that the Authorities acting under the Income Tax Act have\nto act judicially and one of the requirements of judicial action is to give a fair hearing to a person\nbefore deciding against him.\nThat Ld. AO had not afforded opportunity for confrontation and cross-\nexamination of witnesses by Appellant is violation of principle of n…

EIGHT ROADS INVESTMENT ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE , BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as per our aforesaid

ITA 2928/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2928/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Eight Roads Investment Advisors Private Limited 16Th Floor, Plot No.82, Avighna House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan: Aabcf1370N ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms.Chandari Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…ty of being heard.” which as per the Ld. Counsel was never provided to the assessee in the present case. To support her aforesaid contentions, the Ld. Counsel had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i)M. Chocklingam and Meyyappan Vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC) (ii) Appolo Specialty Hospitals (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 2 (Telegana HC) (iii) Arun Kumar Bose Vs. ITO (2025) 173 taxmann.com 853 (Calcutta HC) (iv) ADIT Vs. Linklaters (2014) 151 taxmann.com 412 ( Mumbai- Trib) (v) M/s. ILJIN Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT , ITA Nos. 1494 to 1496/CHHY/2024 (vi) Aivaa Expert Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, I…

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1496/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)

…iver the notice for AY 2018-19 before passing the rectification order for all the captioned Assessment Years. For such a proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT reported in (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is more so in this case, ITA Nos.1494 to 1496/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) M/s. ILJIN Automotive Pvt. Ltd. :: 9 :: where the proviso to section 35 itself makes it incumbent upon the ITO to give notice and hearing to assessee when the effect of the rectification would be the enhancement…

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,IRUNGATTUKOTTAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1495/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)

…iver the notice for AY 2018-19 before passing the rectification order for all the captioned Assessment Years. For such a proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT reported in (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is more so in this case, ITA Nos.1494 to 1496/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) M/s. ILJIN Automotive Pvt. Ltd. :: 9 :: where the proviso to section 35 itself makes it incumbent upon the ITO to give notice and hearing to assessee when the effect of the rectification would be the enhancement…

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1494/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)

…iver the notice for AY 2018-19 before passing the rectification order for all the captioned Assessment Years. For such a proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT reported in (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is more so in this case, ITA Nos.1494 to 1496/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) M/s. ILJIN Automotive Pvt. Ltd. :: 9 :: where the proviso to section 35 itself makes it incumbent upon the ITO to give notice and hearing to assessee when the effect of the rectification would be the enhancement…

CALLUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1009/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1009/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Callus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. R/S 735, A/P Kandgaon, Radha Nagari Rd., Tal: Karveer, Kolhapur-416001. Pan: Aadcc5440J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S National E-Asstt Centre, New Delhi. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/08//2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062466111(1) Dt. 12/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 270A

…ation of principle of natural justice but also from the compliance of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. 8. Strictly the proceedings under the Act are purely governed by principle of natural justice. In M. Chockalingam and M. Meyyappan v. CIT, Madras, (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC), Hidayatullah, J, speaking for the court observed that the authorities acting under the Act have to act judicially and one of the ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6 Callus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs NeAC ITA No.1009/PUN/2024 AY:2020-21 requirements of judicial action is to observe principle of natural justice in reaching their conclusions and is to give a fair…

AVIAXPERT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 87/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…law that it not proper to remove a defect, if any, wherein no notice has been given to the assessee and wherein there will be an increased tax liability on the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chockalingam & Meyyappan Vs. CIT reported in (1963) 48 ITR 34 is precisely holding that principle of natural justice has to be followed by the authorities. As per Section 154(3) of the Act amendment/rectification which has the effect of enhancement of an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made unless the authority concerned gives notice to the as…

SRISHTI ASSOCIATES,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA-RAJASTHAN

ITA 587/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 246ASection 44A

…non- corroborative evidence or reference made by some other authority and on this issue the reliance was placed on the decision of (i) C.D. Singh V ITO 77 TTJ (All) 282 and (ii) Kirti Lal Kalidas & Co. Vs DCTT 67 ITD 573, in which reliance has been placed on 48 ITR 34 (SC) 70 ITR 772 (AP) and 77 ITR 6 (SC). It was also argued that document found from the possession of Shri Upendra Soni cannot be considered as found from the possession of Appellant and thus cannot be considered as evidence in the hands of the Appellant. It is trite law that the presumption of section 132(4A) and section 292C of the Act is applica…

SACHIN KATARIA,PANIPAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3037/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)

…have been done. Ld. DR has 3037/Del/2022 however supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities. It also transpires that against the regular assessment u/s 143(3), the assessee is already in appeal. 6. In the case of Chockalingam & Meyyappan Vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 34 Hon’ble Supreme Court has precisely held that principle of natural justice has to be followed by the tax authorities and section 154(3) of the Act thus provides that amendment/rectification which has effect of enhancement of an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made unless the authori…

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 955/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: S/s. Jitendra Jain, Gopal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…(All.), has filed such appeal is time-barred, hence delay cannot be condoned. Reference may also be had of the proposals prescribed in the case of Padmavathi vs. Kalo, AIR 1980 Kerala 173. Further, in the case of Shreemant Govindrao N. Ghorpade vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 34 (Bom.). It has been held that while deciding such issue Appellate Authority has to consider whether, cause shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal is good and sufficient or not. Here in this case, there is no good and sufficient cause for filing such time-barred appeal. 3.5. The claim of the appellant that subsequent to the decision o…

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 3207/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

…that it not proper to remove a defect, if any, wherein no notice has been given to the assessee and wherein there will be an increased tax liability on the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chockalingam & Meyyappan Vs. CIT reported in (1963) 48 ITR 34 is precisely holding that principle of natural justice has to be followed by the authorities. As per Section 154(3) of the Act amendment/rectification which has the effect of enhancement of an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made unless the authority concerned gives notice to the a…

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 1154/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

…that it not proper to remove a defect, if any, wherein no notice has been given to the assessee and wherein there will be an increased tax liability on the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chockalingam & Meyyappan Vs. CIT reported in (1963) 48 ITR 34 is precisely holding that principle of natural justice has to be followed by the authorities. As per Section 154(3) of the Act amendment/rectification which has the effect of enhancement of an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made unless the authority concerned gives notice to the a…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 1057/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

…that it not proper to remove a defect, if any, wherein no notice has been given to the assessee and wherein there will be an increased tax liability on the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chockalingam & Meyyappan Vs. CIT reported in (1963) 48 ITR 34 is precisely holding that principle of natural justice has to be followed by the authorities. As per Section 154(3) of the Act amendment/rectification which has the effect of enhancement of an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made unless the authority concerned gives notice to the a…

M/S. APARNA ASHRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2015[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 383/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1980-81) Ita No. 431/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1982-83) Ita No. 396/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1984-85) Ita No. 433/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1987-88)

Section 139Section 139(8)Section 154Section 154(2)Section 154(3)Section 217Section 220Section 220(2)Section 254Section 270

…ortunity to the assessee, while rectifying the original assessment order despite the fact that the tax liability increased upon the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan Vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 34 wherein it is held that if opportunity is given to the assessee, the assessee may convince the authority that they had good grounds for not paying the advance tax because their cases were still in process of consideration and settlement. Since the assessee was not given an opportunity to bring the cases to the notice of the authorities which was de…

M/S. APARNA ASHRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2015[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 1986-87

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 383/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1980-81) Ita No. 431/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1982-83) Ita No. 396/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1984-85) Ita No. 433/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1987-88)

Section 139Section 139(8)Section 154Section 154(2)Section 154(3)Section 217Section 220Section 220(2)Section 254Section 270

…ortunity to the assessee, while rectifying the original assessment order despite the fact that the tax liability increased upon the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan Vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 34 wherein it is held that if opportunity is given to the assessee, the assessee may convince the authority that they had good grounds for not paying the advance tax because their cases were still in process of consideration and settlement. Since the assessee was not given an opportunity to bring the cases to the notice of the authorities which was de…

M/S. APARNA ASHRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 431/DEL/2015[1982-83]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 1982-83

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 383/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1980-81) Ita No. 431/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1982-83) Ita No. 396/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1984-85) Ita No. 433/Del/2015 ( A.Y 1987-88)

Section 139Section 139(8)Section 154Section 154(2)Section 154(3)Section 217Section 220Section 220(2)Section 254Section 270

…ortunity to the assessee, while rectifying the original assessment order despite the fact that the tax liability increased upon the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan Vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 34 wherein it is held that if opportunity is given to the assessee, the assessee may convince the authority that they had good grounds for not paying the advance tax because their cases were still in process of consideration and settlement. Since the assessee was not given an opportunity to bring the cases to the notice of the authorities which was de…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT (48 ITR 34) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax