R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanbhai P. Patel

3 SCC 96Supreme Court of India1987#6327 most cited

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

The date of dispatch of a notice under section 148 is the relevant date for determining if it has been validly issued, not the date of service. However, both issuance and service are mandatory jurisdictional requirements for reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanbhai P. Patel · section 148 · section 149 · section 147 · issuance of notice · service of notice · date of dispatch · mandatory jurisdictional requirements

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 2000Section 13 of Information Technology ActSection 13(1) of Information Technology ActSection 144 of Income Tax ActSection 144B of Income Tax ActSection 147 of Income Tax ActSection 148 of Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 151(1)section 282section 149service of noticesection 151section 28reopening of assessmentnotice under section 148income-tax officersection 153section 15

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

Khurshid Ahmad Dar, Jammu and Kashmir, India vs. ITO Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…ld that, impugned notices dated 31-3- 2021 would not meet test of 'issued' under section 149 and would be time barred - Held, yes [Paras 25.12,25.13, 25.23 and 26] [Partly in favour of assessee 11. In the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 3 SCC 96, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the service of notice is not a condition precedent for satisfying the condition of 'issued'. The date of dispatch of the notice was taken into consideration by the Supreme Court as the relevant date for determining that the notice has been validly issued for the purpose of section 149. The Ld. DR failed to controv…

Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation- 2, New Delhi vs. Hyundai Rotem Company

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/304/2025HC Delhi29 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC Mr. ViplavFor Respondent: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 92C

…interpretation by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:22:45 Signature Not Verified ITA No.304/2025 Page 15 of 46 Shanabhai P. Patel, (1987) 3 SCC 96.She also submitted that the judgments of the Supreme Court and the several High Courts would show that, all Courts have consistently held that the expression „issue‟ in its common parlance and its legal interpretation means that the issuer of the order must, after drawing up the order, make an overt act to ensure due dispatch of the order to th…

K R Packaging (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 71/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…m the date of its issuance while the time limit for passing the order of assessment, reassessment, computation and re-computation as prescribed under Section 153 of the Act commences from the date of service [See: R.K. Upadhyay v. Shanab Bhai P. Patel, (1987) 3 SCC 96]. (vi) A jurisdictional error would occur, which can be corrected by a writ court, if reasons to believe are based on grounds that are either arbitrary and/or irrational. (See: Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate ACIT, Calcutta (1972) 3 SCC 234]. 9.1. Thus, if one were to apply the aforestated principles, it would be clear as daylight that the order record…

Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

…y the AO showing the aforementioned address. Therefore, we are of the view that the notice itself was not issued at the correct address. Moreover, in the light of law explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Upadhyaya V.Shanbhai P.Patel(1987) 3 SCC 96, wherein, it was held that the requirement of both the issuance and service of such notice upon the assessee for the purposes of Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Therefore, after considering the above discussions, I am of the firm view that the revenue has failed to establish that there was proper service of…

Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

…y the AO showing the aforementioned address. Therefore, we are of the view that the notice itself was not issued at the correct address. Moreover, in the light of law explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Upadhyaya V.Shanbhai P.Patel(1987) 3 SCC 96, wherein, it was held that the requirement of both the issuance and service of such notice upon the assessee for the purposes of Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Therefore, after considering the above discussions, I am of the firm view that the revenue has failed to establish that there was proper service of…

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 39(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5235/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ssessee that notice u/s 147 was served late and therefore assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act is time barred. In this regard, the assessee has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Upadhyaya vs Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has not submitted the copy of the said decision but he could look into the assessment record and found that the decision held that service of notice is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in ITO. Hel held that in the present case, the notice was issued on 30.03.2015 which is within the pr…

Abhinav Sehgal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 50(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 518/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: 27.05.2022
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…the reassessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act is bad in law. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following judgements:- 1. CIT Vs. Chetan Gupta (I.T. Appeal No. 72 of 2014 High Court of Delhi; 2. R. K. Upadhayaya (1987) 3 SCC 96 (SC); 3. ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC); 4. Shri Inderjeet Vs. ITO, Delhi ITAT (I.T. Appeal No. 2740/Del/2018); I.T.A. No. 518/Del/2020 5. Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad Vs. ITO, Delhi ITAT (I.T. Appeal Nos. 1384 & 2647/Del/2018); 6. Amrik Singh Vs. ITO 159 I.T.D. 329 (Amritsar). 4. The Ld. DR could not controvert the submissions…

Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8094/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2011-12] M/s Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal Vs. The A.C.I.T. 879, Kucha Kabil Atttar Circle 47(1) Chandni Chowk, Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAAFL3353 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2021 Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv Revenue by : Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commi…

J.K.V.B. Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit

For Appellant: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…/s. J.K.V.B Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 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. Shanbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96 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 Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory ‘jurisdictional requirements’. The mere fact that an Assessee participated in the re- assessment proceedings despite not having been iss…

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

…Mr. Singh was to the effect that there is distinction to be drawn between issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and service of such notice upon the Assessee. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanbhai P. Patel [1987] 3 SCC 96, Mr. Singh submitted that service of notice under Section 148 of the Act was "not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in the ITO to deal with the matter". Referring to Section 153 (2) of the Act Mr. Singh submitted that there was no time limit for completion of the re- assessment. This was different from the requirement under Section…

Rajeev Goel, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1184/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, [Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 143(2)

…y of the notice 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. Shanbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96 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 Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory 'jurisdictional requirements'. The mere fact that an Assessee participated in the re-assessment proceedings despite not having been issu…

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

…ce to note in this regard that there is distinction to be drawn between issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and service of such notice upon the Assessee as held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96. In the that case, it was held that service of notice under Section 148 of the Act was "not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in the ITO to deal with the matter". As regards to Section 153 (2) of the Act, there was no time limit for completion of the re-assessment. This was different from the requirement under Section 34 of the Inc…

Prashanti Investment (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. And Shri Sumit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…dings 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. Shanbhai P. Patel 10 ITA.No.391/Del./2018 M/s. Prashanti Investment (P) Ltd., New Delhi. (1987) 3 SCC 96 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 Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory 'jurisdictional requirements'. The mere fact that an Assessee participated in the re- assessment proceedings despite not having been…

Mrs. Manju Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ITA Nos. 688/Del/13 and 689/Del/13 are also allowed

ITA 6036/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 6036, 6037, 6038/Del/2012 A.Y. 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. R.Santhanam, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. P.Damkanunjna, Sr.D.R
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)

…py of the notice 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. Shanbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96 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 A.Y. 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 Mrs. Manju Agarwal, N.Del 110 005 Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory ‘jurisdictional requirements’. The mere fact that an Assessee partic…

M/S Green Field Shelters Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishigreen Field Shelters Ltd., Ito, 84, Pocket 1, Co. Ward 12(2), Vs. Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Rajeev Jain, CA
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…py of the notice 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. Shanbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96 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 Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory „jurisdictional requirements‟. The mere fact that an Assessee participated in the re-assessment proceedings despite not having been issu…

Pr. CIT-1 vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/666/2015HC Delhi21 Sept 2015
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260ASection 282Section 292Section 34

…of the notice 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. Shanbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96 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 Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory ‘jurisdictional requirements’. 2015:DHC:7888-DB ITA Nos. 665 & 666 of 2015 Page 6 of 6 The mere fact tha…

Pr. CIT-1 vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/665/2015HC Delhi21 Sept 2015
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260ASection 282Section 292Section 34

…of the notice 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. Shanbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96 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 Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory ‘jurisdictional requirements’. 2015:DHC:7888-DB ITA Nos. 665 & 666 of 2015 Page 6 of 6 The mere fact tha…

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

…Singh was to the effect that there is distinction to be drawn between issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and service of such notice upon the Assessee. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanbhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96, Mr. Singh submitted that service of notice under Section 148 of the Act was “not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction in the ITO to deal with the matter”. Referring to Section 153 (2) of the Act Mr. Singh submitted that there was no time limit for completion of the re-assessment. This was different from the requirement under Sec…

R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanbhai P. Patel (3 SCC 96) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax