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#1809 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 366,005 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

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…ngs and pre-empt attempts on the part of the assessees to evade receipt of notices u/s. 143(2), be construed as ‘issued’. The jurisdiction to frame an assessment u/s. 147 gets vested by the issue of notice u/s. 148 (R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC)), and which therefore stands validly assumed in the instant case. There is in law no requirement to issue afresh a notice u/s. 148(1), with in fact the assessment proceedings having commenced thus, which are in fact being participated in by the assessee. The fresh notice u/s. 148, assuming the time there-for has not lapsed (at the relevant t…

Late Smt. Mohini Puri Through, Jammu vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 76/ASR/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 76/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…tice u/s. 148(1) and not its service. This forms the basis of the decisions cited by the ld. DR supra per his written submissions dated 13.7.2018 (copy on record). The issue in fact stands settled by the decision in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shamabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC), holding the initiation of reassessment proceedings per a notice issued in time, but served subsequent, as valid, as also held in NBI Ltd. v. ITO [1982] 136 ITR 679 (Del) and ITO v. Lalchand Aggarwal [2012] 134 ITD 91 (Agra)(TM), i.e., besides the decisions in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. (supra) and Sheo Kumari Devi (supra). Reference in this co…

M/S Nice Telecom, Mansa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Mansa

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. I. S. Khurana (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Nice Telecom, vs. Income Tax Officer, Cinema Road, Ward 1(4), Mansa Mansa, District Mansa [PAN: AAFFN 6574K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. I. S. Khurana (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 21.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 07.02.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sudev Industries Ltd

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…ITR 334(Gau.), it was held that service of notice was not a procedural requirement, but a condition precedent for initiation of proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya versus Shanabhai P. Patel, [1987] 166 ITR 163(SC). Madras High Court in Venkat Naicken Trust and Another versus Income Tax Officer and Another, [2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad.) has held that when an assessee pleads that he had not been served with notice, it was for the department to place relevant material to substantiate and prove that the assessee was served. Reliance was placed on the aff…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sudev Industries Limited

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Accurex Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1783/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S Accurex Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 5Th Floor, Unit No.250, Block-3, Tribhuwan Complex, Iswar Nagar, New Delhi-110 Chowringhee Sq., 065. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aacca 1330 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwary, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…duly book the handed over notices and promptly dispatch it without any delay and so the order of Ld CIT(A) is erroneous on this score. For that the ld. DR relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of R.K. Upadhyay Vs. Sanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC). Accordingly, he wants us to reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this count. On the other hand, the ld. AR vehemently opposing the said plea of the ld. DR, drew our attention to Page 23 of the Paper Book which has the tracking record of Indian Post. The consignment of the notice which issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Act has…

Bajrang Singh Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1013/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244A

…be quashed because the very notice issued u/s 148 lacks jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. In support, he replied upon the following case laws. • Y. Narayana Chetty & Anr. v/s ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC) • R.K. Upadhyaya v/s Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC) He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the impugned notice was never served upon the assessee. Even the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. The same was delivered to some villager through whom, the assessee came to know. Similarly, three penalty orders u/s 271B, 271(1)(c) and 271F all dated 29.06.2015 were also pas…

Ramesh Salecha HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3312/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 690

…as not served upon him in time or was not served upon him in a proper manner, in our view, is not applicable for the following reason. 20. There is a clear distinction between "issue of notice" and "service of notice". In R.K.Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163, the controversy was that a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.1970 i.e. the last date of limitation, which notice was served on the assessee on 03.04.1970, after the expiry of limitation. The High Court held that since the notice was served after the expiry of the period, the assessment order was invalid and had accordingly quashed the…

Youvan Cosmeceuticals & Consultancy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 206/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghvan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Netheapal, IRS, JCIT

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

…going through the objections of the assessee held that notice issued on 31.03.2012, last day of the six year period allowed u/s.149 of the Act, was a valid one relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Shanabhai P. Patel 166 ITR 163. Viz-a- viz contention of the assessee was that there were no investments in units during the relevant previous year. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that even if this claim was accepted, assessee having switched out of the scheme on 28.09.2004, the whole of the sum was nothing but short term capital asset. He therefore upheld t…

Sourav Alloys and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Angul vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 233/CTK/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 12Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158

…essee had participated in the reassessment proceedings and, therefore, cannot assert that the notice was Asse ssment Year :20 06- 07 20. There is a clear distinction between “issue of notice” and “service of notice”. In R.K.Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163, the controversy was that a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.1970 i.e. the last date of limitation, which notice was served on the assessee on 03.04.1970, after the expiry of limitation. The High Court held that since the notice was served after the expiry of the period, the assessment order was invalid and had accordingly quashed the…

Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 319/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Dcit, Circle-1, C-4014, Gaur Green City, Vs. Ghaziabad Vaibhav Kahdn, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Accpt8767F) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 ITR 1 (Delhi) the Division Bench had rejected the contention that the words “served" and "issued" are synonymous and are interchangeable. The Bench did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court In R. K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163, which in fact strengthens and fortifies the position that there is a clear distinction between "issuance of notice" and "service of notice". Ms. Bansal's reliance on Tea Consultancy and Services (India) P. Ltd. v. India [2005] 278 ITR 356 (Delhi) is of no avail since the word that had to be construed by the Division Bench in that case was "made"…

Renuka G., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 292B

…as not served upon him in time or was not served upon him in a proper manner, in our view, is not applicable for the following reason. 21. There is a clear distinction between "issue of notice" and "service of notice". In R.K.Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163, the controversy was that a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.1970 i.e. the last date of limitation, which notice was served on the assessee on 03.04.1970, after the expiry of limitation. The High Court held that since the notice was served after the expiry of the period, the assessment order was invalid and had accordingly quashed the…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 834/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Standard Chartered Bank Ddit (It)-2(1), बनाम/ 1St Floor, Scindia House, Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, N. M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 4681 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ankit Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

For Appellant: Shri Ankit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 243DSection 245

…signing may signify its grant, as held in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. CIT [2006] 281 ITR 274 (Raj.), but surely it must be followed by it’s issue. If it is not ‘issued’, a term legally well explained, as in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC), can the refund be said to have been granted? The amount cannot remain in vacuum, so that either the refund has not been or has been granted, even if by way of adjustment, to the assessee, i.e., at any given point of time. Adjustment, after all, is only a manner of ‘grant’ of refund, and should be, therefore, simultaneously, or almost so. Th…

Shri Nirmalendu Dutta, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 594/KOL/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT

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

…9 and 05.06.2006 for AY 1999-2000 respectively. It means that the same have clearly been issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Ld. Sr. DR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Upadhyay Vs. Sanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC), but the same was considered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat high Court in the case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF), supra. Respectfully following the same, I allow the appeal of assessee on jurisdictional issue. 6. As I ha…

Shri Nirmalendu Dutta, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 593/KOL/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT

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

Lm Wind Power Blades (Indai) Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/BANG/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 80Section 80I

…e assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in CIT Vs Mintu Kalita 253 ITR 334. It was held therein that in view of the Supreme Court decision in R.K. Upadhyaya Vs Shanabhai P. Patel, 166 ITR 163, service under the new Act is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the Income Tax Officer to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of reassessment. In Mintu Kalitas case (supra), it was held that in the absence of a proper service of notice u/s 148, the AO cannot make an assessment…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Mohan Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd

ITA/317/2012HC Delhi29 Aug 2012

Bench: The Tribunal’S Decision Is That The Assessee Was Assessed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter “The Act”) For Ay 2002-03 On 31.12.2004. On 27.3.2009, Addl. Cit Range-14, Mumbai Received Information That The Assessee Had Used Accommodation Entries During The Financial Year 2001-02 In Respect Of 2012:Dhc:5305-Db

Section 143(3)Section 148

…icer [2012] 21 TAXMAN 34(Delhi). For the contention that issuance of notice, and not service of notice upon the assessee is a pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction, he placed reliance on two more decisions viz. R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC). 6. Learned counsel for the assessee defended the impugned judgment, contending that since the notice under section 148 was served on the 2012:DHC:5305-DB ITA 317/2012 Page 4 assessee after the expiry of six years from the end of relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer had lost jurisdiction to reopen assessment. Addition…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…he aforesaid decision does not help the respondent. 40. Referring to Sections 147 to 149 of the Act and drawing on dissimilarities with similar provisions in the Income Tax Act, 1922, the Supreme Court in R. K. Upadhyaya versus Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC), has noticed the modifications/changes made in the 1961 Act. Difference between “issue of notice” and “service of notice” was highlighted. It was observed that issue of notice within the prescribed limitation period is a mandatory requirement, whereas service of notice is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction, but a p…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Three Dee Exim Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1604 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 Page 1 of 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.T.A. No.1604/2010 & ITA No. 1778/2010 1. I.T.A. No.1604/2010 % Date of Decision: 25.03.2011 Reserved on : 04.03.2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI ... APPELLANT Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate Versus THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Dr.Raj K. Agarwal, Ms.Poonam Ahuja, Ms.Rani Kiyala and Mr.Johnson Bara, Advocates.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Three Exim Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1778 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148