Pannabai v. CIT

170 ITR 80High Court1988#3827 most cited

What is Pannabai v. CIT authority for?

Failure to serve a valid notice under Section 148 renders reassessment proceedings void and without jurisdiction. The issuance and proper service of such a notice are fundamental prerequisites for the Assessing Officer's authority to reassess income.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pannabai v. CIT · Section 148 · Section 147 · Section 292B · service of notice · reassessment proceedings · invalid notice · void proceedings · lack of jurisdiction · condition precedent

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 292bbsection 292bsection 292section 29service of noticesection 149escapement of incomenotice under section 148reassessment proceedingssection 148section 143(2)

Judgments citing Pannabai v. CIT

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2092/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. J. AsraniFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250

…on for reassessment was bad in law and therefore the consequential order was held to be void ad initio and liable to be quashed and set aside. The ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of P.N. Sasikumar vs CIT(1998) 170 ITR 80 (Ker.) relied upon by the assessee, where the Hon'ble High Court held that the violation of service of notice u/s. 148 is a fundamental infirmity and not mere irregularity which is not curable u/s. 292B of the Act and that the onus is upon the revenue to substantiate that the notice has not only been issued but has been served upon the assessee. T…

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

…O, 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). The existence of a valid section 148 notice being a condition precedent for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess under Section 147, it does not confer any right to the assessee, which he could abandon. Want of a…

ASHISH SHARMA,GOPAL PURA BYE - PASS JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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) a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

…asmuch as it was not a notice for the asst. yr. 1950-51 for which the assessment was sought to be reopened by the ITO and the notice being an invalid notice, the assessment or reassessment made by the ITO under s. 34(1)(a) was bad. (ii) P.N. Sasikumar vs. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker)Hon'ble Court held that - It is a case where "no notice" was sent to "the assessee", the "AOP" as enjoined by law. The entire proceedings are, in the circumstances, void and illegal and totally without jurisdiction. Such a fundamental infirmity cannot be called a "technical objection" or a mere "irregularity" and such vital infirmity cannot b…

LATE MR. SHANKAR MUKUND SHENAI THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR SANGEETHA SAMIR KOPPIKAR,MUM vs. ITO-23(3)(3), MUM

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

ITA 3241/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3241/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम Late Shri Shankar Mukund Income Tax Officer, 23 (3) Shenai (3) Vs. (Through His Legal Heir Room No.108, Sangeetha Samir Koppikar) Matrumandirtardeo, Grant Flat No. 1202, Anish Tower Road Senapatibapat Marg, Next To Mumbai-400 007 Ruparel College Matunga (W) Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No.Aahps4468D अपीलार्थी / Appellant .. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Puru Jain & Shri RajendrakumarFor Respondent: Shri Anil K. Das
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…d to the dead person. It is settled principle of law that the case cannot be decided in the absence of the affected party Therefore, notice to the dead person was illegal.” e. The Kerala High Court in P.N. Sasikumar&Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 69 CTR (Ker) 78: (1988) 170 ITR 80 (Ker)has held that the issue of a notice under s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment order to be passed under s. 147 of the Act. It is also settled law that if no such notice is issued or if the notice is invalid or is not in accordance with law or is not served on the proper person in accordance wit…

HEMANT M. MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 33 (2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6483/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehemant M Mehta Huf Vs. Acit – 33(2), A-307/308, Ekta Room No. 302, 3Rd Terrace, Dahanuru Floor, C-11, Wadi, Kandivili (W), Pratyakshakr Bhavan, Maharashtra – 400 067 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aachh8909M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok Bansal & Shri Ajay Daga.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal &For Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292

…8 of the Act on the non existing person /assessee and the Ld.AR relied on the judicial decisions as under: 1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohd. Rizwan Prop. Allahabad HC –ITA no.100 of 2015 dated 30-03-2017. and 2. P.N Sasikumar and Ors. Vs. CIT, 1988, 170 ITR 80, Kerala HC. 7. We further support our view relying on the ratio of the Honble Supreme Court decision in Pr.CIT Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 416 ITR 613 ( S C ), that the notice issued on non existing person and the assessment order passed is bad in law. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. 8. I…

M/S. EMTA COAL LTD.,( ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY ) ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2422/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ab initio void. For this proposition, he relied on the following case laws: he relied on the following case laws: i) CIT Vs. Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (P&H); CIT Vs. Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (P&H); ii) P. N. Shashi Kumar & Ors. Vs. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 80 P. N. Shashi Kumar & Ors. Vs. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 80 iii) Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5409 of 2019 Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5409 of 2019 Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5409 of 2019 iv) Rajbir Singh 238 ITR 126 (P&H) 38 ITR 126 (P&H) v) CIT Vs. Jagat Novel Exhibitors P. Lt…

NARENDRA KUMAR GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

ITA 1532/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 292BSection 50CSection 55(2)(b)Section 55A

…the I.T. Act, 1961. 17.1 While the above judgment clearly deals with the vagueness, in the case before us, the notice rather specifically mentioned that it is meant for “individual” – “"ि"”. 22 Narendra Kumar Gill 18. P.N. Sasikumar and Others vs CIT (1987) 170 ITR 80 (Ker): In this case, the dispute is whether the notice has to be served on the AOP or an individual when the assessment was meant to be made in the hands of the AOP. The facts are not applicable to the instant case. 19. Dnyaneshwar Govind Kalbhor (HUF) vs ACIT (2016) 74 Taxmann.com 67 (Pune-Trib): In this case, “the PAN Number appearing in the…

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

…d on the decision in CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad [2006] 280 ITR 541/[2005] 147 Taxman 441 (All.); Hotline International (P.) Ltd. (supra); Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/[2005] 145 Taxman 186 (All.); P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT [1988] 170 ITR 80/[1987] 35 Taxman 131 (Ker.); Venad Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 19 ITA 168/JP/2020_ M/s Girirajkripa Developers P ltd. Vs ITO 463/212 Taxman 20/[2011] 16 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi) and Mayawati v. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 349 (Delhi). 23. In reply, Mr. Ajay Vohra submitted that notice to an Assessee under Section 148 and 143 (2) of the Act wa…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…[a]. 368 [Kar]; CIT v. Ramesh Mahesh Sanjay Trust Ex Others [b]. reported in 231 ITR 752 [Mad]; Gutta Anjaneyulu & Co. v. CIT reported in 249 CTR [c]. 106 [AP]; Pannabai v. CIT reported in 153 ITR 608 [AP][FB]; [d]. [e] P.N.Sasikumar & Ors. v. CIT reported in 170 ITR 80 [Ker]; [vii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Et Another Vs. Children's Education Society, 358 ITR 373 wherein 12 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. the Hon'ble Court has held that when the return is filed as an artificial juridical person the quest…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…[a]. 368 [Kar]; CIT v. Ramesh Mahesh Sanjay Trust Ex Others [b]. reported in 231 ITR 752 [Mad]; Gutta Anjaneyulu & Co. v. CIT reported in 249 CTR [c]. 106 [AP]; Pannabai v. CIT reported in 153 ITR 608 [AP][FB]; [d]. [e] P.N.Sasikumar & Ors. v. CIT reported in 170 ITR 80 [Ker]; [vii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Et Another Vs. Children's Education Society, 358 ITR 373 wherein 12 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. the Hon'ble Court has held that when the return is filed as an artificial juridical person the quest…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…[a]. 368 [Kar]; CIT v. Ramesh Mahesh Sanjay Trust Ex Others [b]. reported in 231 ITR 752 [Mad]; Gutta Anjaneyulu & Co. v. CIT reported in 249 CTR [c]. 106 [AP]; Pannabai v. CIT reported in 153 ITR 608 [AP][FB]; [d]. [e] P.N.Sasikumar & Ors. v. CIT reported in 170 ITR 80 [Ker]; [vii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Et Another Vs. Children's Education Society, 358 ITR 373 wherein 12 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. the Hon'ble Court has held that when the return is filed as an artificial juridical person the quest…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…[a]. 368 [Kar]; CIT v. Ramesh Mahesh Sanjay Trust Ex Others [b]. reported in 231 ITR 752 [Mad]; Gutta Anjaneyulu & Co. v. CIT reported in 249 CTR [c]. 106 [AP]; Pannabai v. CIT reported in 153 ITR 608 [AP][FB]; [d]. [e] P.N.Sasikumar & Ors. v. CIT reported in 170 ITR 80 [Ker]; [vii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Et Another Vs. Children's Education Society, 358 ITR 373 wherein 12 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. the Hon'ble Court has held that when the return is filed as an artificial juridical person the quest…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…[a]. 368 [Kar]; CIT v. Ramesh Mahesh Sanjay Trust Ex Others [b]. reported in 231 ITR 752 [Mad]; Gutta Anjaneyulu & Co. v. CIT reported in 249 CTR [c]. 106 [AP]; Pannabai v. CIT reported in 153 ITR 608 [AP][FB]; [d]. [e] P.N.Sasikumar & Ors. v. CIT reported in 170 ITR 80 [Ker]; [vii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Et Another Vs. Children's Education Society, 358 ITR 373 wherein 12 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. the Hon'ble Court has held that when the return is filed as an artificial juridical person the quest…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…[a]. 368 [Kar]; CIT v. Ramesh Mahesh Sanjay Trust Ex Others [b]. reported in 231 ITR 752 [Mad]; Gutta Anjaneyulu & Co. v. CIT reported in 249 CTR [c]. 106 [AP]; Pannabai v. CIT reported in 153 ITR 608 [AP][FB]; [d]. [e] P.N.Sasikumar & Ors. v. CIT reported in 170 ITR 80 [Ker]; [vii] Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Et Another Vs. Children's Education Society, 358 ITR 373 wherein 12 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. the Hon'ble Court has held that when the return is filed as an artificial juridical person the quest…

LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KUSUM D. PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-

ITA 4590/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Devendra S. Pandit, The Commissioner Of Income The Legal Heir Of Late Smt. Tax (A)-31, Kusum D. Pandit, Pratkshyakar Bhavan, C-10, C/O D.C. Bothra & Co. (Ca), 297, Vs. R.N. 706, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Bkc, Bandra (East), 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Mumbai - 400051 Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Amypp6516E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Singh (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita (Dr ) Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2020

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Singh (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita (DR )
Section 143Section 251Section 271Section 274Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VP) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Devendra S. Pandit, The Commissioner of Income the Legal Heir of Late Smt. Tax (A)-31, Kusum D. Pandit, Pratkshyakar Bhavan, C-10, C/o D.C. Bothra & Co. (CA), 297, Vs. R.N. 706, 7th Floor, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, BKC, Bandra (East), 1st Floor, Opp. Bank of India, Mumbai - 400051 Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 PAN: AMYPP6516E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar Singh (AR) Revenue by : Ms. Kavita (DR ) Date of Hearing: 09/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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…

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

…Act, for which reliance could be placed on the decision in CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad 280 ITR 541 (All); CIT v. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All); P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 80 (Ker); Venad Properties (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 340 ITR 463 (Del) and Mayawati v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 349 (Del). 3.5 In view of these particular facts of the present case, it has to be decided whether notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement. The relevant portion of Section 148 (1) reads as under:…

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 57/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Toshniwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 50C

…rvice of notice is a jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Act, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Smt. Phoolmati Devi [144 ITR 954] (All); ii. PN Sasikumar and others Vs. CIT [170 ITR 80] (Ker); iii. CIT Vs. Shital Prasad Karag Prasad [280 ITR 541] (All); iv. CIT Vs. Norton Motors [275 ITR 595] (P&H) 4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below to submit that the department has taken steps to serve the notice on the assessee and since the notice was un-served, it was served by affixture at the addre…

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 56/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Toshniwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 50C

…rvice of notice is a jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Act, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Smt. Phoolmati Devi [144 ITR 954] (All); ii. PN Sasikumar and others Vs. CIT [170 ITR 80] (Ker); iii. CIT Vs. Shital Prasad Karag Prasad [280 ITR 541] (All); iv. CIT Vs. Norton Motors [275 ITR 595] (P&H) 4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below to submit that the department has taken steps to serve the notice on the assessee and since the notice was un-served, it was served by affixture at the addre…

M/S.M.L.REALTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 795/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S M. L. Realty, Acit-22(2), Mumbai 411/A Sunder Villa, S. V. बनाम/ Road, Santacruz (W), Vs. Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaqfm3360H

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 292BSection 68

…und taken by the assessee challenging the non-service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 14. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of P. N. Sasikumar vs CIT (1988) 170 ITR 80(Kerala). We find that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, in light of invalid notice has held that the issue of a notice u/s 148 of the Act, is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is also settled law that if no such notices is issued or if the notice is invalid or is not in accordance with law or is…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2