Page 10 of 15 of Income Tax v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal

345 ITR 29High Court2012#2036 most cited

What is Page 10 of 15 of Income Tax v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal authority for?

Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a rule of evidence that validates service of notice in certain circumstances. It introduces a deeming fiction that if an assessee appears in any proceeding or cooperates in any inquiry relating to assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any required notice was duly served, precluding objection to such service.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Income Tax v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal · Section 292BB · service of notice · deemed service · appearance before tax authorities · cooperation in inquiry · rule of evidence · validation of notice

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BBSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 119Section 120

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7a)section 292bbsection 120section 292bsection 158bcsection 292section 29assistant directorservice of noticesection 260section 260asection 127

Judgments citing Page 10 of 15 of Income Tax v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal

Jyoti Shroff, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 2278/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Shroff Dcit, Circle-29, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…er Section 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under Section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

Meena Swarup, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…on 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal [2012] 25 taxmann.com 112/345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

Vinod Kumar Giri, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 716/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vinod Kumar Giri,…………………….…………..Appellant 158/2/1, Belilious Road, Kadamtala, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Adxpg2995E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………......Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Vikash Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 11, 2025 O R D E R

Section 119Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…er Section 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under Section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…had not disputed the orders of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma (supra), but had not followed them on account of 292BB. They further observed that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal 345 ITR 29 had considered the issue of section 292BB and held that it would have no effect on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC). The Hon’ble Bench held that the ld. CIT(A’s) could therefore not be sustained. Examining the finding of the ld. CIT(A), that the return under section 148 had not been f…

Krishna Chandra Mondal, Chinsurah vs. ACIT, Cir. 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated herein above

ITA 58/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

…er Section 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT & Another Ys. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under Section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

Manish Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 639/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148o

…er Section 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT & Another Ys. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under Section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

Manish Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 638/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148o

…er Section 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT & Another Ys. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under Section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Jain, Indore

ITA 794/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…er of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (supra) in answering a similar question, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Commissioner ITA No. 578 of 2015 & connected matters Page 10 of 15 of Income Tax v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal (2012) 345 ITR 29 (All.) and pointed out that Section 292BB of the Act was a rule of evidence which validated service of notice in certain circumstances. It introduces a deeming fiction that once the Assessee appears in any proceeding or has cooperated in any enquiry relating to assessment or reassessment it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of th…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…on 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal [2012] 25 taxmann.com 112/345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

Balmukund M Vaishnav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…on 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal [2012] 25 taxmann.com 112/345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

P M Nargunam, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 304/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 304/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) बनाम P M Nargunam, Acit No. 1, Santosh Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-6, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aaepn9976E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 68

…I.T.A.No.304/Del/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 304/DEL/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) बनाम P M Nargunam, ACIT No. 1, Santosh Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-6, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AAEPN9976E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Department by Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order date…

Surender Kumar Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-60(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 638/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Prakesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 58Section 69C

…see and is basically a rule of evidence. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (supra) in answering a similar question, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal (2012) 345 ITR 29 (All.) and pointed out that Section 292BB of the Act was a rule of evidence which validated service of notice in certain circumstances. It introduces a deeming fiction that once the Assessee appears in any proceeding or has cooperated in any enquiry relating to assessment or reassessment it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of th…

Jaya Bothra, Purba Barddhaman vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1632/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील संख्या: 1632/कोल/2019 धनिाारण वषाः 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संख्या: 1632/कोल/2019 धनिाारण वषाः 2015-16 I.T.A. No.: 1632/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jaya Bothra............................................................Appellant [PAN: AJVPB 2144 C] Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata........................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Somnath Ghosh, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Biswanath Das, CIT, Sr. D/R, appeared on behalf of the Reven…

M/S. Shree Shoppers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य) Assessment Year: 2012-13 m/S. Shree Shoppers Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of 2, Shree Arcade, Jogendra Income-tax, Circle – 9(2), Vs. Kabiraj Row, Kolkata-700 Kolkata. 007. (PAN:AACCC1272F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.09.2022…

Santosh Mahalingam, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Tarvinder Singh Kapoor & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Santosh Mahalingam, Vs Acit, No.1, Santosh Nagar, Pratap Central Circle-6, Vihar, Ghaziabad-201009. New Delhi. Pan-Cjkps5766C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2022

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…er of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (supra) in answering a similar question, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Commissioner ITA No. 578 of 2015 & connected matters Page 10 of 15 of Income Tax v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal (2012) 345 ITR 29 (All.) and pointed out that Section 292BB of the Act was a rule of evidence which validated service of notice in certain circumstances. It introduces a deeming fiction that once the Assessee appears in any proceeding or has cooperated in any enquiry relating to assessment or reassessment it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of th…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

ITA 467/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 113Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 271

…he drawing of a presumption of service of notice on an Assessee and is basically a rule of evidence. In Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (supra) in answering a similar question, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012) 345 ITR 29/25 taxmanri.com 112 (All.} and pointed out that Section 292BB of the Act was a rule of evidence which validated service of notice in certain circumstances. It introduces a deeming fiction that once the Assessee appears in any proceeding . or has cooperated in any enquiry relating to assessment or reassessment it shall be deemed that any notice und…

Indrani Prasad, New Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

ITA 409/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 113Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 271

…he drawing of a presumption of service of notice on an Assessee and is basically a rule of evidence. In Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (supra) in answering a similar question, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012) 345 ITR 29/25 taxmanri.com 112 (All.} and pointed out that Section 292BB of the Act was a rule of evidence which validated service of notice in certain circumstances. It introduces a deeming fiction that once the Assessee appears in any proceeding . or has cooperated in any enquiry relating to assessment or reassessment it shall be deemed that any notice und…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Nopany & Sons

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the

ITAT/58/2017HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. Tilak Mitra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv
Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 260A

…ection 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) had 6 no jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time. The Tribunal to support its conclusion placed reliance in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed further and make assessment since notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly not issued. As in the case on hand, the revenue sought to take coverage under Section 292BB of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the very foundation of…

Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Hapur vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 DINESH SHARMA, Vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), S/O SH. M.P. GUPTA, HAPUR 163, SHIV PURI HAPUR UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: AABCD6942Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA Department by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad on 03.06.2016 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ad also in law…

Durga Ferrous P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 672/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 DURGA FERROUS P. LTD., Vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), AN-2, SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 088 (PAN: AABCD6942Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA Department by : Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi on 21.12.2018 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the bu…