How many judgments cite Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.?

105 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (383 ITR 448), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 292BB, Section 144.

Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.

383 ITR 448High Court2016#1040 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for completing an assessment or reassessment. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment order invalid, even if the return of income is filed belatedly or in response to a Section 148 notice.

105

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. · 383 ITR 448 · Section 143(2) notice · mandatory requirement · Section 148 reassessment · jurisdictional defect · invalid assessment · belated return · failure to issue notice · reassessment proceedings quashed

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 148 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 292BB Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 153b(1)(a)section 148(1)section 292bb time barred assessment section 153(1)(a)bona fide mistake section 90a section 153b(1)section 153(4)section 158bc section 292b

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…er section 148 1.11 PCIT V/s Silver Line (2016) 383 ITR 455 (Del)] Held Order of reassessment cannot be passed without notice under section 143(2). Jurisdictional error cannot be cured by section 292BB. 1.12 CIT V/s Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del) Held Also refer Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd. v ACIT (2017)390 ITR 167 (Ker)] Failure of AO to issue notice under section 143(2) prior of finalizing re-assessment order could not be condoned by referring to Sec. 292BB and is fatal to the order of re- assessment-Re-assessment was not sustainable in law. 1.13 ALOK MITTAL V/S DCIT (2008) 1…

Jagdish Prasad Agarwala, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1798/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana, ARsFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69D

…has been laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High /court in the case of CIT Vs C. Palaniapan (284 ITR 257), Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Iqwal Singh Atwal Vs CIT (1984)(147 ITR 599) and Delhi High Court in Pr CIT Vs Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt Ltd (2016)(383 ITR 448). Accordingly we set aside the order of Id CIT(A) on this issue by holding that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is barred by limitation and therefore the consequent assessment framed is also invalid and is quashed. 09. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on issue of notice issued u/s 143(2) being barred by limitation, the other grounds…

Jatin Dilipbhai Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 892/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…ts in a number of decisions have held the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act to be a mandatory requirement of law. The Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT vs Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448(Delhi) has categorically held that failure to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is fatal to reassessment order. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been held to be jurisdictional notice for scrutinizing returns filed by assessees and any defect with respect to the issuance of such notice is held to be not curable since it effects the assumption of…

Jatin Dilipbhai Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 891/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2101/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250

…The mandatory nature of that requirement is settled not only by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) but also by a decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax-08 v. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 448 Del. I.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd 7. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the impugned assessment order is hereby quashed and even on merits there is no justification on the part of the Assessing Officer to make the impugned additions and the same are accordingly ordered to be deleted. 8. In…

Anand Sawroop, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Nahan

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

ITA 709/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50Section 50C

…m 162 (Bom), Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Sapthagiri Finance & Investments vs ITO (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs Silver line (2016) 383 ITR 445 (Del) and in case of PCIT vs Jai Shiv Shankar traders (P) Ltd (2016) 383 ITR 448(Del), Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of PCIT vs Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd (2018) 96 taxmann.com 104 (Cal) wherein it has been consistently held by the Hon’ble High Courts that reassessment order u/s 147 cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. No contrary authority including that of the…

Netherlands Operating Company B.V., Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Taxation 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)(b)Section 147Section 148

…al [2019] 108 taxmann.com 182 (Μ.Ρ.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2019] 417 ITR 325 (SC) 6. ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) 7. PCIT vs Silver Line [2016] 383 ITR 455 (Delhi) 8. PCIT vs Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) 9. CIT vs Rajeev Sharma [2011] 336 ITR 678 (Allahabad) 10. ACIT vs P & R Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No. 4944/Del/2018) 10. Before us, the Ld.DR submitted that even if notice u/s.143(2) was not issued, it could be cured by sec.292BB of the Act. We don’t agree with such a contention of the Ld.DR. We note that similar contention was raised by…

Syeda Mariam, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Bengaluru

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

ITA 341/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 54Section 548Section 54B

…ections (2) and (3) of section 143 are applicable and no assessment could be made without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act” The above judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by the Delhi High Court in the judgement reported in (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) wherein it was held as follows: “Failure by the assessing officer to issue a notice to the assessee under section 143 (2) of the Act subsequent to December 16, 2010 when the assessee made a statement before the Assessing officer to the effect that the original return filed should be treated as a return pursuant to a notice under section…

Fixed & Mobile Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fixed & Mobile Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 1 Raffles Place, International Taxation, #28-01 One Raffles Place, Tower-2, Circle 1(3)(1), Singapore, Singapore 9999. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcf4910G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca & Ms Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…TAs No.767 & 696/Del/2023  CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC)  PCIT vs. Silver Line [2016] 383 ITR 455 (Delhi)  ACIT & ANR. vs. Hotel Blue Moon [(2010) 321 ITR 0362 (SC)]  PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi)  PCIT vs. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 104 (Calcutta)  Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (DHC)]  CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma [(2011) 336 ITR 0678 (ALL.)  PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 701 (Delhi)  Indus Towers Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 430 (Delhi)  ADIT (Exe…

Ashwani Kumar and Co. Private Limited, Rajouri Garden vs. ITO Ward 3(3), C.R. Building

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

ITA 179/DEL/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chella Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…pon the same, prayed that the assessment order be declared null and void. The ld counsel of the assessee also placed reliance on the following case laws: a) CIT v Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325(SC) b)PCIT v Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt Ltd (2016) 383 ITR 448(del) c) PCIT v Silver Line & anr. (2016) 383 ITR 455(Del) d) CIT v Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC) 8. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. On a query from the Bench as to the existence of the notice u/s 143(2) in the assessment records, he was fair to admit the notice u/s 143(2) was not available on re…

Alma Assets Consultancy Private Limited., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1092/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1092/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Alma Assets Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.………............…...……………....Appellant 341-K1, Post Office: Sahabana, Chandigarh Road, Mundian Khurd Ludhiana. [Pan: Aaica6234H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.10,26,99,100/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Cash Credits Into The Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Contested Not Only The Validity Of The Additions On Merits But Also Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act & Also The Validity Of The Assessment For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…said to have complied with the requirement of filling the return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148. It is however observed that this aspect has already been considered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 cited on behalf of the assessee and relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order wherein a letter was filed by the assessee on 16.12.2010 informing the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant to the notice u/s 148. The AO thereafter, proceeded to complete the reassessment without issuing a notice…

Rama Mohan Soma, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Hindupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 254Section 69B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. PAN : AOCPS8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue by: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR. Date of hearing: 02.05.2024 Date of pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13…

M.P. Poonia, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/JODH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154Section 154(8)

…nge "Non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High Court or of the Supreme Court is a mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified." Delhi High Court decision in the case of PCIT-08 vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar traders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) has also held that not to consider and rely on the Supreme Court decision is illegal and erroneous. Therefore, on the issue there was rectifiable mistake in the order. The CIT(A), Bikaner in para 4.5 of the appellate order dated 6.7.2022 in appeal No. 10882/2017-18 in the case of Ram Kumar has allowed appeal of the assessee relying on the…

Murlidhar Kriplani, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 54F

…egal, bad in law, unjustified, unwarranted and not tenable in the eye of law. Hence order so passed deserves to be quashed. The assessee also relied upon the case of - 1. ACIT VS. Hotel Blue Moon (SC) 321 ITR 362 2. PCIT Vs Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., 383 ITR 448 (Delhi HC) GROUND NO. 3-ADDITION OF RS. 3.50.000/- That the assessee also challenges the addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the legal ground that where no addition has been made on the basis of reason recorded, addition on different issue which was not the subject matter of reopening is illegal. Sir, your attention is invited to the judgment of hon'bl…

Gonuguntla Nirmala Devi, Annatapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Anantapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 412/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkataraman, AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Taxman 113 (SC) and the decisions of the various Hon’ble High Courts in the cases of CIT vs. Sukhini P. Modi (2014) 367 ITR 682 (Gujarat), PCIT vs. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd (2018) 409 ITR 132 (Calcutta), Pr.CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del) and Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT (2017) 390 ITR 167 (Kerala) apart from other decisions, is to the effect that in case of proceedings initiated in section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, requirement to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory and such a defect cannot be cured by section 292BB of the Act…

Sohanbir Singh, Haryana vs. ITO (4) 1, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1964/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 292B

…is case to assume valid jurisdiction to pass or frame reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 or 143(3) of the Act. Placing reliance on the various judgment including judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Jay Shiv Shankar Traders P Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Del.) The ld. counsel submitted that when not notice u/s. 143(2) has been issued by the Assessing Officer then the failure by the Assessing Officer is fatal to the order of reassessment and this defect is not curable u/s. 292BB of the Act. 5. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted tha…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…lue Moon (supra) and the jurisdictional Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PR. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Silver Line [(383 ITR 455), (paper book page no. 166-174) Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (341 ITR 247), CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Pvt. Ltd [(383 ITR 448), (paper book page no. 179-187)], Indus Tower Limited vs. CIT, judgment dated 29/05/2017, the hon’ble courts on various occasions has concluded that for completion of the assessment under Section 148 of the Act, compliance with the procedure under Section 143 (2) is mandatory, and if notice is not issued to the Assessee before completion of the r…