How many judgments cite Narayana Chetty v. ITO?

73 judgments on BharatTax cite Narayana Chetty v. ITO (35 ITR 388), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Narayana Chetty v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Narayana Chetty v. ITO

35 ITR 388Supreme Court of India1959#1564 most cited

What is Narayana Chetty v. ITO authority for?

A valid and properly served notice under section 148 (or old section 34) is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite for initiating reassessment proceedings; its absence or invalidity renders the entire proceedings illegal and void ab initio. The validity of service hinges on adherence to prescribed modes, not merely the recipient's acknowledgment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO · 35 ITR 388 · Section 148 notice · Section 34 notice · jurisdiction for reassessment · mandatory requirement notice · service of notice validity · void ab initio proceedings · income escaping assessment · prescribed mode of service · not procedural requirement

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 151 Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 282(1)section 148(1)section 282 section 292bb section 124 section 120 approval under section 151 section 34 section 292b service of notice section 292 income escaping assessment

Judgments citing Narayana Chetty v. ITO

Smt. Varshaben Paras Jani(L.H. of Shri Paras Chunilal Jani), Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 536/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 536/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…mere procedural requirement but a condition precedent to assume jurisdiction and to make a valid assessment/reassessment. Absence of such a notice would make the assessment invalid and without jurisdiction in view of the decisions of Y Narayana Chetty v. ITO, 35 ITR 388 (SC); CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi , 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 82 ITR 821 (SC); Nayalchand Malukchand Dagli v. CIT, 62 ITR 102 (Guj); Madanlal Agarwal v. CIT, 144 ITR 745 (All); PN Sasikumar v. CIT, 170 ITR 80 (Ker); and Electro Steel Castings Ltd. 264 ITR 410 (Cal)-SLP Dismissed 266 ITR (St.) 104 (SC…

Sunil Kumar Pathak, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Rewa

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

ITA 37/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148

…Ram Karan Pathak” and issued notice in the name as “ Sunil Kumar Pathak Son of Ram karan Pathak” which is not disputed by the revenue. We find Hon'ble High court of Madras relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayana Chetty Vs ITO (35 ITR 388) and has observed as under: "The notice prescribed by Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1992, for the purpose of initiating re- assessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement, that the service of the notice on the is a condition precedent to the Sunil Kumar Pathak, Jabalpur. validity of any re-assessment made under this Sectio…

Ratnashri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

ITA 1607/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 141(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…s settled law that validity of reopening u/s 148 is a jurisdictional issue and goes to the root of the matter and requires to decided at the outset itself; reference is made to three judge bench decision of hon’ble apex court in case of Narayana cheety vs ITO 35 ITR 388 THAT reopening based on invalid notice u/s 148 is void and illegal and issue of valid notice u/s 148 is not a mere procedural requirement; SC 4 Jugde bench decision in case of Raza Textiles vs ITO 1973 87 ITR 539 SC; SC 4 Judge bench decision in Karan Singh vs Chaman singh Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340 ; Hon'ble Madras high court in case of Charu K Bagad…

Smt. Zayada Ghori, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/JODH/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR

Section 148

…the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench on identical facts in the case of the Mukesh Kumar v. ITO in ITA No. 2358/Del/2012 dated 12.06.2015 wherein the Tribunal has quashed the reassessment framed relying on the decision in the case of (i) Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC), (ii) CIT v. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur 41 ITR 421 (SC), (iii) CIT v. Robert 48 ITR 177 (SC) and (ii) CIT v. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 271 (All. HC). 6. In view of the settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we quashed the reassessment proceedings, since there was no valid notice 5 Zayada Ghori v. ITO pur…

Bihari Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. ITO(E), Ward Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3032/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 34

…ssuance and service of notice had to be completed within the prescribed period. Consequently, the service of notice within the limitation period was the foundation of jurisdiction under the 1922 Act. In Y. Narayana Chetty v. Income Tax Officer, Nellore [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC) the Supreme Court observed in the context of Section 34 of the 1922 Act,: "The notice prescribed by section 34 of the Income tax Act for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement; the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment mad…

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…opening of assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the time frame envisaged under section 149 of the Act is necessary for a valid reopening of assessment. In case of Y. Narayan Chetty &Anr. vs. Income Tax officer, Nellore &Ors reported in 35 ITR 388, the Supreme Court in the context of Income Tax Act, 1922 had observed as under:- “5. The first point raised by Mr. Sastri is that the proceedings taken by respondent 1 under s.34 of the Act are invalid because the notice required to be issued under the said section has not been issued against the assessees contemplated therein. In the present cas…

M/S. Steecon Infrastructure, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nt on the firm may be permissible, the assessment made in the present case is invalid for want of a proper and valid notice as required by section 63 of the Act. Reliance in this connection is placed on Y. Narayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, Nellore [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC), where it has been held by the Supreme Court that the notice prescribed in section 34 for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere 22 M.s Steecon Infrastructures procedural requirement. The service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under section…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the ITO would be illegal and void. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble Courts in the cases of: a) Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); b) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); c) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). d) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) e) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) f) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del) 511 g) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta (20…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Deepak Garg, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Krnal, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

…valid notice u/s 148 and assumption of jurisdiction by the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, making the reassessment void ab initio. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Narayana Chetty v ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court on the requirement of a valid notice u/s 148 of the Act corresponding to section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, has held that: I.T.A. No. 1046/Del/2021 "The notice prescribed by section 34 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement; it is only if the said notice is served on the assessee as req…

Hari Dass Singla, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands deleted

ITA 958/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Section 115BSection 127Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Hari Das Singla, vs Income Tax Officer, C-13/77, Sector-3, Ward-50(4), Rohini Room No.1409, Block E-2, Delhi-110085 Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 PAN-AGZPS0112J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. R.R. Singla, CA Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2022 ORDER This present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Centre, Delhi [hereinafter refer…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…nt to the validity of assessment. This is well settled proposition of law and if any authority is required, the same will be found in the following judicial pronouncements: - i) CIT Vs T.R. Rajkumari (1974) 96 ITR 78 (Mad) ii) Y. Narayana Chetty V ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC) iii) CIT Vs Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) iv) CIT Vs Kurban Hussain lbrahimji Mithi borwala (1971) 82ITR 821 (SC) 11 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO v) Vijay Kumar Jain Vs CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj) vi) CIT Vs Ramsukh Motilal (195) 27 ITR 54 (Bom) vii) R.K. Das & Co. Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 439 (Cal) viii) Tansukhrai B…

Shri Harsh Vardhan, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

ITA 308/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Nirmal Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the time frame envisaged under section 149 of the Act is necessary for a valid reopening of assessment. In case of Y. Narayan Chetty & Anr. vs. Income Tax officer, Nellore & Ors. reported in (1959) 35 ITR 388, the Supreme Court in the context of Income Tax Act, 1922 had observed as under: 5. The first point raised by Mr. Sastri is that the proceedings taken by respondent 1 under s.34 of the Act are invalid because the notice required to be issued under the said section has not been issued against the Harsh Vardhan Vs. DCIT – ITA No. 308/Asr/2018 20 as…

Benco Finance & Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2092/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 68

…assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the time frame envisaged under section 149 of the Act is necessary for a valid reopening of assessment. In case of Y. Narayan Chetty & Anr. vs. Income Tax officer, Nellore & Ors. reported in (1959) 35 ITR 388, the Supreme Court in the context of Income Tax Act, 1922 had observed as under: 5. The first point raised by Mr. Sastri is that the proceedings taken by respondent 1 under s.34 of the Act are invalid because the notice required to be issued under the said section has not been issued against the assessees contemplated therein. In the present case…

Girirajkripa Developers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…completed within the prescribed period. Consequently, the service of notice within the limitation period 20 ITA 168/JP/2020_ M/s Girirajkripa Developers P ltd. Vs ITO was the foundation of jurisdiction under the 1922 Act. In Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 the Supreme Court observed in the context of Section 34 of the 1922 Act,: "The notice prescribed by section 34 of the Income tax Act for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement; the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made unde…

Income Tax Officer 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Lafit Lighting Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 698/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Gerald-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…easons were recorded 6 days after issue of notice u/s 148 which would vitiate the reassessment 5 M/s. Lafit Lighting Private Limited Assessment Year :2009-10 proceedings in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Y.Narayan Chetty V/s ITO (1959 35 ITR 388) and CIT V/s Kurban Hussaain Ibrahmiji Mithiborwala (1973 82 ITR 821). Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Tribunal in ACIT V/s Blue Star Ltd. (40 ITR-Trib. 35) and ITO V/s Jolly Makers Pvt. Ltd. (20 ITJ 262). Therefore, it was submitted that AO did not comply with mandatory requirement of recording of reasons before issuance of notic…

M/S. Barnala Steel Industries Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6783/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 158Section 158BSection 271

…assessment year to issue statutory notice separately. The Assessing Officer failed to comply with the statute under which the prescribed procedure is mandatory for the Revenue to be followed. The reliance of the Ld. AR in case of Y Narayana Chetty vs. ITO (35 ITR 388)(SC) is relevant in present case, therefore, the notice itself is bad in law and void ab-initio. Thus, the assessment order does not survive. Thus, ITA No.3201/Del/2011 is allowed. There is no need to go into the merits of the case. 9. As regards, the penalty appeal being ITA No.6783/Del/2013. It is appeal filed against penalty order passed…

M/S Barnala Steel Industries Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3201/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 158Section 158BSection 271

Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

For Appellant: Shri Vikash ModiFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)Section 50C

…ment was that both the issuance and service of notice had to be completed within the prescribed period. Consequently, the service of notice within the limitation period was the foundation of jurisdiction under the 1922 Act. In Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 the Supreme Court observed in the context of Section 34 of the 1922 Act, "The notice prescribed by section 34 of the Income tax Act for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement; the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…issuance and service of notice had to be completed within the prescribed period. Consequently, the service of notice within the limitation period was the foundation of jurisdiction under the 1922 Act. In Y. NarayanaChetty v. Income Tax Officer, Nellore [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC) the Supreme Court observed in the context of Section 34 of the 1922 Act,: "The notice prescribed by section 34 of the Income tax Act for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement; the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made…