Mrs. Shubhashri Panicker v. Commissioner of Income

403 ITR 434High Court2018#25013 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 149 Section 159 Section 2(7)

Issues it is cited on

service of notice reassessment proceedings section 148 india document

Judgments citing Mrs. Shubhashri Panicker v. Commissioner of Income

PUKHRAJ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1, BHARATPUR

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

ITA 1114/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalpukhraj, C/O. Virendra Singh Gothiya, Atal Bandh Gate, Dhau Pyasa, Bharatpur 321 001 Pan No.: Birpp 6009G ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bharatpur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sankalp Pitaliya, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR

Section 148Section 250

…he Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department in its order dated 02/07/2024 and the order dated 05/12/2018 of the A.O. are liable to be set aside. 2. That in the case of Mrs. Shubhashri Panicker vs. Commissioner of Income tax cited at (2018) 403 ITR 434. Honourable Rajasthan High Court held that "Assessing officer cannot complete reassessment without service of notice and reassessment proceedings finalised without effecting proper service of notice are liable to be quashed." The fact of non-service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been admitted by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Inco…

JAGTAR SINGH BASSI,JALANDHAR vs. ACIT (INT. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 309/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 309/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jagtar Singh Bassi, Vs. The Acit C/O Y.K.& Co., बनाम (Int Taxation), Chartered Accountants, Circle, 4Th Floor, Ambika Tower, Chandigarh Police Lines, Jalandhar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Gfxpb5393R अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 309Section 69

…har 5 service of the notice to the Assessee. Accordingly, the action of the Assessing Officer of making assessment or the CIT(A) of passing appellate order are not justified. Various case laws have been brought on record such as ‘Shubhashri Panicker vs. CIT’, 403 ITR 434 in which the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that re- assessment notice must be served on the Assessee. It is a burden on Revenue to prove the service of notice sent by speed post. In the case of wrong address, no service of notice, the re-assessment proceedings are not valid. As per income tax Act, Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court i…

LATE KRISHNA GOPAL GUPTA (THR. SON AND LEGAL HEIR SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR GUPTA),JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 2 (1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250

…s that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was sent at a wrong address and service of notice at wrong address cannot be termed as a valid service of notice. The appellant in this regard has relied upon the decision in the case of Shubhashri Panicker vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 434 (Raj) in which it is held that "notice 5 LATE KRISHAN GOPAL GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 2(1), JAIPUR must be served on the assessee. Burden on Revenue to prove service. Notice sent by speed post to wrong address is no service of notice. Reassessment proceedings are not valid." 10.1 The AO on the above submission of the appellant in a report has submitte…