M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT

48 ITR 34Supreme Court of India1963#4363 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 366,339 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

M/S. Aparna Ashram, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 430/DEL/2015[1981-82]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 1981-82

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 396/DEL/2015[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 1984-85

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 395/DEL/2015[1983-84]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 1983-84

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 383/DEL/2015[1980-81]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 1980-81

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 382/DEL/2015[1979-80]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 1979-80

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…

Metal Rolling Works Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai

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

ITA 1857/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 2(47)(v)Section 269U

…fication made by him by rejecting the discount is bad in law, since it is in violation of provisions of sec. 154(3) of the Act. In support of this proposition, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case law:- (1) M. Chockalingam and M. Meyyappan v. CIT 148 ITR 34, 37, 38, 40, 41 (SC)1 "Section 35 which deals with the rectification of mistakes provides that the Income-tax Officer (among other officers) may at any time within four years from the date of any assessment order, etc. passed by him, on his own motion rectify any mistake apparent from the record of the assessment and shall within the like period re…

ITO, WD-31(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bata India Ltd. Employees Statutory Provident Fund, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 103/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kr.Das, JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.Jhajharia, AR
Section 10Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139(1)Section 17Section 44A

…ion from "M/s MPVCL" and from "The C K P Co operative Bank Ltd." without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard, hence there is breach of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court in case of M. Chockalingam and M. Meyyappan v. CIT [1963J 48 ITR 34 (SC) has held that the action u/s 154 may be taken in favour of the taxpayer without any notice to him but if action has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing the refund, the AO must send a notice to the assessee and give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Here the AO has defaulted in not giving an opportunity to the appellant…