Maharaja of Patiala v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay

11 ITR 201High Court1943#21958 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 159 Section 250 Section 292B Section 124(3)Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29)section 159 legal representative section 292b section 292 section 29 notice under section 148 section 12 section 142 reassessment proceedings section 142(1)section 15

Judgments citing Maharaja of Patiala v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay

Maria Estibeiro, Panaji vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 34/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)

…ssessee in the hands of legal heir/appellant sans compliance of section 159 of the Act is incurable u/s 292B/292BB of the Act, the assessment therefore deserves to be quashed. This proposition finds strength in the decision of ‘Maharaja Patiala Vs CIT’ [1943, 11 ITR 201 (Bom)] 19. We also note that, an identical issue with verbatim fact & circumstance came for consideration before Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in ‘Vanitha ITAT-Panaji Page 18 of 28 Maria Estibeiro L/H of Jacintodas Estibeiro Vs DCIT, Panaji Goa ITA No.034/PAN/2024 AY:2012-13 Gopal Shetty Vs ACIT’ [TS-646-HC-2021(KAR)] where their Hon’ble Lordshi…

ACIT-16(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Fakhruddin Taiyebali Padaria, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5500/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit- 16(2), Mumbai Fakhruddin Taiyebali Padaria 5Th Floor, Shabbir Place, 80 Vs. Dr. A.L. Nair Road, Mumbai- 400008. Pan: Abdpp 7103 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 250Section 292BSection 69A

…e assessments were illegal and invalid as no notice had been issued to all the legal representatives of deceased. The court placed reliance upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Maharaja of Patiala v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay, (1943) 11 ITR 201, for the proposition that an assessment made without strictly complying with section 24- B (section 159 in the present Act) is not void or illegal and that any infractions in that behalf can be waived by the assessee. The court also placed reliance upon its earlier decision in Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras,…

Late Sh. Birdi Chand Through Legal Heir Mukesh Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

…e assessments were illegal and invalid as no notice had been issued to all the legal representatives of deceased. The court placed reliance upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Maharaja of Patiala v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay, [1943] 11 ITR 201, for the proposition that an assessment made without strictly complying with section 24-B (section 159 in the present Act) is not void or illegal and that any infractions in that behalf can be waived by the assessee. The court also placed reliance upon its earlier decision in Estate of Late RangalalJajodia v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, [1…