How many judgments cite R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel?

63 judgments on BharatTax cite R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel (166 ITR 163), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel

166 ITR 163Supreme Court of India1987#1830 most cited

What is R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel authority for?

While issuance of a Section 148 notice is a jurisdictional requirement for reassessment, its service is a condition precedent for making the assessment order, not merely for assuming jurisdiction. Valid service can occur anytime before the assessment's completion, and participation does not waive the mandatory requirement of proper notice service.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel · Section 148 notice service · reassessment jurisdiction · condition precedent for assessment order · validity of 148 notice · service before assessment completion · waiver of notice service · mandatory jurisdictional requirement · Income Tax Act section 147 · service of notice

Also reported as

33 Taxmann 229

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 292bb section 292b section 149 section 292 section 29 section 34 service of notice kelvinator mere change of opinion specified authority reason to believe

Judgments citing R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 2572/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2011-12 Narayan Barter Private Limited ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCN4535G Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Bonnie Deb Barma, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 12-March-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 20-March-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissione…

GURUSAMY SUSEELA,NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NUNGAMBAKKAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Mr. B. Ravi CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…ntire reassessment proceedings to be bad in law and ab initio void. We are aware of the distinction between ‘issue of notice’ and ‘service of notice’, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RK Gurusamy Suseela :: 4 :: Upadhyaya v. SP Patel (166 ITR 163), but at the same time, it is indeed imperative for the AO to demonstrate that there was indeed issuance of notice on the given date viz., 31.03.2017, in the present case. The issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is not a mere procedural requirement but a condition precedent to the validity of reassessment. If it is shown that, no notice was…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 IIR 54 (Bom) and R. K. Das and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 439 (Cal), and we think that that view is right." 5.2. He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC) wherein it has been held as under (page 164): "The High Court has quashed the notice by accepting the assessee's contention that the action of the Income-tax Officer was barred by limitation prescribed by the Act. There is no dispute that the notice in this case under section 147(b) of the Act was issued by registered post on March 31, 1970…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 IIR 54 (Bom) and R. K. Das and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 439 (Cal), and we think that that view is right." 5. 2. He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC) wherein it has been held as under (page 164): "The High Court has quashed the notice by accepting the assessee's contention that the action of the Income-tax Officer was barred by limitation prescribed by the Act. There is no dispute that the notice in this case under section 147(b) of the Act was issued by registered post on March 31, 1970,…

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 347/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147(6)Section 148Section 250Section 34

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 347/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bimal Kumar Drolia ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ADLPD7606B Appearances: Assessee represented by : B.K. Agrawal. Department represented by : Kapil Mandal, Addl. CIT (DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 23-April-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 18-July-2…

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

…e was given to the Assessee during the re-assessment proceedings and that by itself should constitute sufficient service of notice on the Assessee. In light of the law explained by the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 33 Taxman 229/166 ITR 163 which has in turn been followed by this Court in Chetan Gupta (supra), the requirement of both the issuance and the service of such upon the Assessee for the purposes of sections 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory 'jurisdictional requirements'. The mere fact that an Assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings despite not having been i…

ITO, WARD-2, ROHTAK vs. JAI SINGH, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8284/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 274

…a 5.2.2 that there is no evidence available on record to prove the affixture. There is even no entry on order sheet to this effect that the notice was served by affixture. • Hence Ld. CIT(A) relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RK Upadhyay 166 ITR 163, and several other judgments, quashed the reassessment proceedings for non- service of notice u/s 148. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2015 was issued on the address given by the assessee in his letter which was received in the AO’s office o…

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

…ch objection subsequently. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Shanabhai P. Patel Page 14 of 19 I.T.A. No.: 304/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh. [1987] 33 Taxman 229 (SC)/[1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC)/[1987] 62 CTR 17 (SC)[28-04-1987] in support of the claim that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee. The submission made in this regard is as under: “Section 34, conferred jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period Therefore, service of notice…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…making assessment, reassessment or re-\ncomputation under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing officer shall\nserve notice on the assessee. This issue came up before the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P.\nPatel reported in 166 ITR 163 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court\nheld that service of the notices is not a condition precedent to\nconfirmation of jurisdiction of the ITO but the condition precedent for\nmaking of the order of the assessment and thus if notice u/s 148 is\nserved before completion of the assessment, it is a valid service of\nthe notice. In the instant case, the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

…e serve notice on the assessee. This issue came up before the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel reported in 166 ITR 163 (SC). Patel reported in 166 ITR 163 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that service of the notices is not a condition precedent to service of the notices is not a condition precedent to service of the notices is not a condition precedent to confirmation of jurisdiction of t confirmation of jurisdiction of the ITO but t…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…le Allahabad High Court in the case of 'ACIT Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development (supra)' has held as under: "The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'R.K.Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P.Papel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC) held as under: P a g e 20 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 "The mandate of section 148(1) of the Act is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been a service of notice which is a condition precedent to making an order of assessment. The Supreme Court further held that the requirement of issue of notice is s…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, J.P. BHAVAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 340/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 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’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

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

…he presumption of fiction of service must be drawn on the lines indicated in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 7. To dispel any possible doubt, it would be of advantage to refer to R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 62 CTR (SC) 17 : [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC) wherein it has been held that since the AO had issued a notice of reassessment under section 147 by registered post on 31st March, 1970, which notice was received by the assessee on 3rd April, 1970, nevertheless the notice was not barred by limitation and retained its legal efficacy. Their Lordships spoke thus: "……A clear distinction has bee…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 339/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

AISHWARYA PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3650/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Smt. Renu Jauhri (Am) I.T.A. No. 3650/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/S. Aishwarya Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1)(1) Publication Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 534/579A 3Rd Floor, Centre Point Aayakar Bhavan 18Th Road, Chembur M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaaca3569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.G. Goyal & Shri Harsh S. Goyal Department By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri (Am) :-

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

…d over to the postal authorities (as agent of the appellant) within time but served 8 M/s. Aishwarya Publications Pvt Ltd later, it cannot be treated as invalid as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Upadhyay v/s Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163. The appellant’s claim that the notice was issued on 03.04.2017 based on information available on the website of the postal department is also not accepted. (vi) Some other objections regarding not providing reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s.143(2) and denial of four weeks time from disposal of objection to commencement of proceedings…

M/S AYYANAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(5), KOCHI

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

ITA 279/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasayyanad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Officer No. 2565, Vazhakkala Non-Corporate Ward - 1(5) Thrikkakara P.O. Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682021 Kochi - 682018 [Pan:Aacaa0824B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 80P(1)

…(1) shall, for the purpose of s. 147, imply its service, and which, being in April, 2016, is thus barred by time. The issue, as it appears to us, is no more res integra, toward which we may cite some decisions, viz. R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shamabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Pat)(FB); Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB), which may be taken into account where it is being decided on merits. 5. Further, we find that the dispute in the instant case is qua the deduction u/s. 80P(1) r/ws. 80P(2)(a)(i), denied admission in view of s. 80A(5), on which a…

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…nd irrelevant as Shri Mahendra Chajjer husband of assessee was legally not authorized person for obtaining the notice u/s 148 issued by ld AO. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RK Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel (166 ITR 163). Further placed reliance on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Chetan Gupta (2016) 382 ITR, Delhi High Court ii. CIT vs. Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd. 344 ITR 541, Delhi High Court iii. ITO vs. Hepta Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 3608 of 2014 (ITAT Delhi) Date of order 08.07.2015 iv. CIT vs. Avtar Singh (P&H) (HC), 219 CTR 588 v. CIT vs. Eqbal Singh…

SURAJKUMAR & SONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 258/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant, Member & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Surajkumar & Sons 302,-C, Shivshakti Chs Ltd., Kashinath Dhuru Marg, Agar Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaqfs4464G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Dalpat Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Kishor Dhule- CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 4

…or before 31.03.2017 thereby holding the assessment order to be invalid and bad-in-law. 9. The ld. AR relied upon these decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Major Tikka Khushwant Singh 80 Taxman 88 (SC), R.K. Upadhyaya Vs. Sanabhai Patel 166 ITR 163 (SC) and Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) vs. Hiren Bhatt 202 Taxman 99 (Guj) for the preposition that notice under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR controverted the said facts and stated that the assessee in its Paper Book had filed the copy of notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2017 and the same was d…

PARVEJ,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 6642/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Parvej, Vs. Ito, C/O M/S Sanjeev Anand & Ward-2(1), Associates, Ghaziabad. 77-Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Dkkpp4804A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Km. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Mithalesh Km. Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

…ly with the requirement of section 148 of the Act regarding service of notice before framing reassessment order. My conclusion also gets strong support from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC). Therefore, this legal ground of the assessee fails. 12. Since, in the earlier part of this order, I have concluded that the AO has not obtained mandatory approval under sub-section (1) of section 151 of the Act before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act from the competent authority, therefore, this omission vitiates the reassessment proceedi…

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4