How many judgments cite Narayanappa v. CIT?

187 judgments on BharatTax cite Narayanappa v. CIT (63 ITR 219), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Narayanappa v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 250, Section 143(1).

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

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 250 Section 143(1)Section 153A Section 153D

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 43(3)section 147(a)section 151(1)section 158bb kelvinator section 153b within four years section 158bc section 151(2)live link section 158bg

Judgments citing Narayanappa v. CIT

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

ITA 334/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. 7. In the matter of S. Narayanappa and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [1967] 63 ITR 219, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon the decision in the matter of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), has observed as under : 'But the legal position is that if there are in fact some reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to believe that there had been any non-disclosure as regards any fact, which could have a material baring on…

Ritu Sanjay Mantry, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2003/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2003/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ritu Sanjay Mantry Ito-24(3)(4), बनाम/ C-24, Padma Nagar, Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 099 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aghpm 2569 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. N. Hemlatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 20.01.2017 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1) On Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, Ld.Ao Erred In Reopening The Completed Assessment On Issuing The Notice U/S. 148 Without Having A Valid Reason To Believe 'That Income Had Escaped Assessment & Without

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mrs. N. Hemlatha

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ome and concealment of material facts on part of the assessee. Once such reason to believe is formed by the AO, he is well within his powers to issue notice u/s 148 as per procedure laid down in the Act. It was held in the case of S. Narayanappa v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219(5C) that there should be facts before the ITO that reasonably give rise to a belief that what is held by him must of course be in good faith. It cannot be a mere pretence, but the facts on the basis of which he entertained the belief need not at this stage be irrefutably conclusive to support his tentative conclusion where such an inference can be…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajiv Gulati, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 2726/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…osing income. c. Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) : ITO Vs Nawab Mir Barkat AU Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC) Belief should not be arbitrary or irrational but based on relevant and material reasons. d. S. Narayanappa Vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) Belief must be in good faith, and cannot merely be a pretence. e. Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs ITO (1970) 77 ITR 268 (SC) Absence of evidence to prove existence of ITO's belief that income has escaped assessment, will invalidate reassessment. f. Mayank Poddar (HUF) Vs WTO (2003) 181 CTR (Cat) 362 If in law an item is not taxable, no amou…

Mr Rajiv Gulati, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 1762/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…lal Patel 148 CTR (Guj.). The sufficiency of reasons cannot be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woolen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), K R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). In case of Multi Screen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bom) the jurisdictional high court after considering the decision in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed as under : "Where the AO purports to exercise power under s.147 within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the…

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

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

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

Section 143(3)

…dment made in 1948. In that year, the words "definite information" were replaced by the words "reason to believe". While expatiating on the new words, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through V. Ramaswami J., in S.Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC), opined as under (page 222) : "Again, the expression 'reason to believe' in section 34 of the Income- tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether…

Santech Solutons Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…s stronger than the expression ‘is satisfied’. The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer should not be irrational and arbitrary. To put it differently, it must be reasonable and must be based on reasons which are material. In S.Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219, it was noted by the apex court that the expression ‘reason to believe’ in section 147 does not mean purely a subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer, the belief must be held in good faith ; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational nexus or a relevant…

P Praveen Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2212/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 21.11.2017

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ment made in 1948. In that year, the words "definite information" were replaced by the words "reason to believe". While expatiating on the new words, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through V. Ramaswami J., in S.Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC), opined as under (page 222) : "Again, the expression 'reason to believe' in section 34 of the Income- tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine the question whether…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ent made in 1948. In that year, the words "definite information" were replaced by the words "reason to believe". While expatiating on the new words, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through V. Ramaswami J., in S.Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC), opined as under (page 222) : ITA No.1698/Mds./16 :- 16 -: "Again, the expression 'reason to believe' in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court t…

Jvm Steel P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 7462/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. V. Rajguru byFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…assessment of income is sufficiency of the reasons for reopening of the assessment and not its accuracy that cannot be questioned at that time. Our above view gets strength from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Narayappa Vrs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC). Hence in our view, the order of reopening is valid and needs no interference. Hence this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Ground No. 2 & 3 filed by the assessee and Ground No. 1 & 2 of the appeal filed by the revenue. 6. Since all the grounds raised by the assessee as well as revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A)…

Lalita Anup Anand, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7415/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2012-13 Smt. Lalita Anup Anand, Income Tax Officer 337, Ashish Indl. Estate, Ward-21(2)(2), बनाम/ Gokhale Road, Room No.111, 1St Floor, Vs. Dadar (West), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aadpa1527B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…of the belief that is claimed to have been held at the time when he issued the notice. But the Court cannot for the purpose of ascertaining validity of the notice examine the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief [See S. Narayanappa & Ors. vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC)]. 20 Lalita anup Anand 15. Explaining the scope of the expression "information", in the background of s. 132 of the Act, which logic is equally applicable to a case under s. 147 of the Act, in L.R. Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 101 CTR (Del) 179 : (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del), a Division Bench of this Court observed thus : "The e…

Debottor Trust Estate of Rammohan Mullick, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(4), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 217/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 57

…s stronger than the expression "is satisfied". The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer should not be irrational and arbitrary. To put it differently, it must be reasonable and must be based on reasons which are material. In S.Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219, it was noted by the apex court that the expression "reason to believe" in section 147 does not mean purely a subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer, the belief must be held in good faith ; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational nexus or a relevant…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Aska Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2682/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…by Assessing Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. (3) The expression 'reason to believe' must be in good faith; it cannot merely be q pretence as opined in the case of S. Narayanappa -vs-CIT,63 ITR 219 (SC). (4) The words 'reason to believe' suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. (5) Without prejudice to the above, we like to add that Ld. A.O. has exceeded his jurisdictional limit to initiate proceeding U/s. 147 for the second time on 02/12…

Hakmans Financial Services & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4364/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sharma

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…d, therefore, reassessment cannot be invalidated on the ground that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not disclosed to the assessee. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Tribunal relied on the judicial pronouncements/precedents reported in 63 ITR 219 (SC) and 25 ITR 447 (Mad.).” 14. After considering the detailed order passed by CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the assessee was not only aware of the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment but had also availed of the opportunity to file objections to the issuance of notice u/s.148, therefore, it cannot be presumed t…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Hakmans Financial Services & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3035/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sharma

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sng Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 ACIT, Circle-9(1), Room No. Vs. M/s. SNG Developers Ltd. 163, C.R. Building, New (Earlier Known as SN Jee Delhi Developers) 112, Indra Prakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi GIR/PAN :AAFCS8465B (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 [In ITA No. 735/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. SNG Developers Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Room No. (Earlier Known as SN Jee 163, C.R. Building, New Developers) 112, Indra Delhi Prakash Build…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Care Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s Cross Objection both are dismissed

ITA 470/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2004-05

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Goel, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…on of the belief that is claimed to have been held at the time when he issued the notice. But the Court cannot for the purpose of ascertaining validity of the notice examine the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief in S. Narayanappa & Ors. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC). (emphasis, in bold, assigned) 13. The above decision was followed in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vardhman Estates Ltd. (2007) 165 Taxman 473 (Del). In that case the assessee had filed return declaring income of Rs.23,552/- which was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AD took proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued the no…

Smt. Chaya Sinha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2462/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shria.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh Susan George, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…endment made in 1948. In that year, the words "definite information" were replaced by the words "reason to believe". While expatiating on the new words, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through V. Ramaswami J., in S.Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC), opined as under (page 222) : "Again, the expression 'reason to believe' in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The belief must be held in good faith : it cannot be merely a pretence. To put it different, it is open to the court to examine Page 8 of 11 the que…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I