Narayanappa v. CIT

63 ITR 219Supreme Court of India1967#503 most cited

What is Narayanappa v. CIT authority for?

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

187

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

Narayanappa v. CIT · 63 ITR 219 · section 153D · administrative act · quasi-judicial act · approval from higher authority · opportunity of hearing · JCIT approval · judicial scrutiny · search assessment

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Narayanappa v. CIT

ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Anushree V. Khetan, Mumbai

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

ITA 4975/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Sing, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4975/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ito-24(1)(2) Smt. Anushree V. Khetan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 78, J. B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aocpk 8810 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…elief need not at this stage be irrebuttably conclusive to support his tentative 8 Smt. Anushree V. Khetan conclusion. Where such an inference can be drawn, sufficiency of reasons cannot be questioned at the preliminary stage." [S. Narayanappa vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC): TC51R.651A]. 5.1.6. The aforesaid fact regarding under assessment of income was a tangible material, which gave the AO reason to believe that the income of the appellate has escaped assessment. What is important at the time of formation of belief by the A.O. regarding the escapement or under assessment of income is sufficiency of the reasons…

Mailavarapu Anantha Naga Narasimha Srikanth vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 185/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…3) of the Act are to be held as null and void and void abinitio. The assessee relied on the decisions of Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti S…