Pannabai v. CIT

170 ITR 80High Court1988#3777 most cited

What is Pannabai v. CIT authority for?

When a return is filed as an artificial juridical person, the assessee cannot be treated as an association of persons, making any order to that effect without jurisdiction.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pannabai v. CIT · section 143(2) · artificial juridical person · association of persons · jurisdiction

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

DCIT, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Mani Square Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 245FSection 292BSection 68Section 69

…jurisdictional defect as there cannot be any assessment against a 'dead person'. Thus the issue is no longer res integra, a similar question arose before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein the case of Sasikumar (P.N.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1988] 170 ITR 80 (Del) held - "Reassessment-Notice-Issue of valid notice is condition precedent to validity of reassessment-Association of persons-Assessee, a hotel, not furnishing return of income-- Notice for reassessment issued to an individual, S-Notice not specifying whether it was issued to principal officer or member of AOP consisting of Sand others-Income-…

DCIT, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Mani Square Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1052/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 245FSection 292BSection 68Section 69

…jurisdictional defect as there cannot be any assessment against a 'dead person'. Thus the issue is no longer res integra, a similar question arose before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein the case of Sasikumar (P.N.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1988] 170 ITR 80 (Del) held - "Reassessment-Notice-Issue of valid notice is condition precedent to validity of reassessment-Association of persons-Assessee, a hotel, not furnishing return of income-- Notice for reassessment issued to an individual, S-Notice not specifying whether it was issued to principal officer or member of AOP consisting of Sand others-Income-…

Vidyavihar Containers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3Rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacn0291R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…tice being served, the entire proceedings will be without jurisdiction and void and even the consent on the part of the assessee would confer no jurisdiction on the ‘ITO’.’ 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 w…

Smt. Lokamma, Bangalore vs. Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 563/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 133ASection 2(47)

…een in the name of HUF and not in the name of individuals. Thus the reopening and reassessment in the name of individuals is bad in law. He has relied upon the following decisions : i. CIT Vs. K. Adinarayana Murthy 65 ITR 607 (SC) ii. P N Sashi Kumar Vs. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker) iii. M R Pattabhiram (HUF) Vs. ACIT in ITA No.262/Bang/2013 dt.21.11.2014. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that apart from JDA the assesses have also executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the developer and therefore the assessee has transferred all the rights as well as possession of the land in favour of the…

ITO vs. Sri. N.P. Bagwa & Others

In the result, all these appeals and cross objections are allowed

ITA 1012/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 144

…B)/16 Hon’ble Delhi High Court is also not rendering any help to the assessee in the present case. Later on, ld. AR of the assessee also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of P.N.Sasikumar and Others Vs CIT 170 ITR 80. In this case also, the notices were issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 and in the notices, the AO did not specify the capacity in which it was issued to the assessee whether in individual capacity or as Principal Officer or member of an association or body of individuals. 14. We have already discussed above that for the purpose of issuing noti…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs. Chetan Gupta

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

ITA/72/2014HC Delhi15 Sept 2015
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…of the Act. Reliance was also 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). 23. In reply, Mr. Ajay Vohra submitted that notice to an Assessee under Section 148 and 143 (2) of the Act was different from a notice under Section 142 (1) for instance. Service of notice on the Assessee…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…valid are just and proper.” 26. The tribunal has rejected that Section 292-B would not come to the aid of the Revenue as the requirement to serve the notice was a jurisdictional pre-condition and reference was made to P.N. Sasikumar versus CIT, [1988] 170 ITR 80 (Kerala) and P.V. Doshi versus CIT, [1978] 113 ITR 22 (Gujarat). 27. Section 292-B of the Act reads as under:- “292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or iss…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Three Dee Exim Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1604 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…3 (SC), CIT v. Mintu Kalia, 253 ITR 334 (Gau), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.), 66 ITR 147 (SC), CIT v. Harish J Punjabi 297 ITR 424 (Del), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 311 ITR 235 (Del), P. N. Sasikumar v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker), CIT v. Mani Kakar 18 DTR 145 and an order of this court in CIT v. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. ITA No. 1171 of 2008 dated 31-08-2009. 9. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that since the Assessing Officer had issued notice of re-assessment under Section 147 by registered post on 31st March, 1970, whic…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Three Exim Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1778 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…3 (SC), CIT v. Mintu Kalia, 253 ITR 334 (Gau), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.), 66 ITR 147 (SC), CIT v. Harish J Punjabi 297 ITR 424 (Del), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 311 ITR 235 (Del), P. N. Sasikumar v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker), CIT v. Mani Kakar 18 DTR 145 and an order of this court in CIT v. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. ITA No. 1171 of 2008 dated 31-08-2009. 9. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that since the Assessing Officer had issued notice of re-assessment under Section 147 by registered post on 31st March, 1970, whic…

The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI vs. Three Dee Exim Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1778/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…3 (SC), CIT v. Mintu Kalia, 253 ITR 334 (Gau), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.), 66 ITR 147 (SC), CIT v. Harish J Punjabi 297 ITR 424 (Del), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 311 ITR 235 (Del), P. N. Sasikumar v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker), CIT v. Mani Kakar 18 DTR 145 and an order of this court in CIT v. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. ITA No. 1171 of 2008 dated 31-08-2009. 9. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that since the Assessing Officer had issued notice of re-assessment under Section 147 by registered post on 31st March, 1970, whic…

The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI vs. Three Dee Exim Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1604/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…3 (SC), CIT v. Mintu Kalia, 253 ITR 334 (Gau), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.), 66 ITR 147 (SC), CIT v. Harish J Punjabi 297 ITR 424 (Del), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma 311 ITR 235 (Del), P. N. Sasikumar v. CIT 170 ITR 80 (Ker), CIT v. Mani Kakar 18 DTR 145 and an order of this court in CIT v. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. ITA No. 1171 of 2008 dated 31-08-2009. 9. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that since the Assessing Officer had issued notice of re-assessment under Section 147 by registered post on 31st March, 1970, whic…