Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT

287 ITR 91Supreme Court of India2006#867 most cited

What is Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT authority for?

When a statutory authority takes action that can lead to civil or adverse consequences for an individual, the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), must be implicitly followed, even if the relevant statute does not expressly provide for it.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT · Rajesh Kumar v. CIT · principles of natural justice · audi alteram partem · implicit hearing · civil consequences · section 271(1)(c) penalty · assessment procedure · statutory authority action · section 142(2A)

Also reported as

157 Taxmann 168

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 153DSection 148Section 147Section 142(2A)Section 153B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 136section 158besection 43(3)section 193section 255(4)section 196section 153(3)section 90asanction under section 151section 142(2a)audi alteram partemsection 153a(1)(a)

Judgments citing Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT

Swaty Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2551/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

…ITA Nos. 2549 & 2551/DEL/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम SONIA MEHTA ACIT, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. ARA Centre, PAN No.ACAPM1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम SWATY MEHTA ACIT, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. ARA Centre, PAN No.…

Sonia Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

…ITA Nos. 2549 & 2551/DEL/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम SONIA MEHTA ACIT, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. ARA Centre, PAN No.ACAPM1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम SWATY MEHTA ACIT, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. ARA Centre, PAN No.…

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…n by the Assessee has been rejected without any cogent reasons, which is beyond the principles of natural justice and not permissible under the law. In this connection, the Appellant refers to and relies upon the following:  Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT reported in 287 ITR 91 (Supreme Court) 12 “If an Assessee files a return the same is not presumed to be incorrect.”  Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT “Assessment under the Act is a judicial act and must be based on cogent material, not on unsound presumption.”  CBDT Circular No. 12 dated 23.08.2001 as per copy enclosed at page 169. Relevant extracts from su…

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 514/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 Brand India Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 262, C Block Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Jaipur. स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCP7925K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. & Ms. Satwika Jha, Adv. राजस्व की…

Krishna Enterprises, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 34(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5654/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…ic interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 91 (SC); (2007) 2 SCC 181, in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, the principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no e…

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6159/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…1 ITA Nos. 6158, 6159, 6160, 6214, 6215 & 6216/Del/2018 Dheeraj Chaudhary THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6158 to 6160/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 6214 to 6216/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15) Shri Dheeraj Chaudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner Flat No.1A Empire Estate of Income Tax, CC-8 Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi New Delhi - 110030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AASPK9267B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ruches…

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9695/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…ic interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 91 (SC); (2007) 2 SCC 181, in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, the principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no e…

K.K.Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

ITA 520/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…of the superior officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded approv…

K.K.Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…of the superior officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded appro…

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 518/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…of the superior officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded approv…

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 517/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…of the superior officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded approv…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…r K.K. Mohandas officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded appro…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…r K.K. Mohandas officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded appro…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…r K.K. Mohandas officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded appro…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…r K.K. Mohandas officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded appro…

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 237/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…of the superior officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded appro…

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 236/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…of the superior officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded appro…

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/COCH/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…of the superior officer should not be done mechanically, without application of mind. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) and also Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC). The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded appro…

Sanjay Jain, Bhilwara, Rajasthan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1384/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 250

…n by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 168], this Court…

Panjurajan Ganesan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ic interest". 190. Here, section 271(l)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 91 (SC); (2007) 2 SCC 181, in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, the principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no e…