Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO

90 DTR 289High Court2013#1886 most cited

What is Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO authority for?

When a return is filed or deemed filed in response to a Section 148 reassessment notice, issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory if the Assessing Officer finds issues needing explanation; failure to do so renders the assessment invalid.

61

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

Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO · Section 148 notice · Section 143(2) mandatory · reassessment invalid · return in response to S. 148 · 90 DTR 289 · 25 Taxmann.com 341 · Section 142(1) notice · assessment quashed · Madras High Court

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 341210 Taxmann 78

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 144Section 292BBSection 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 292bbsection 292bsection 292section 148 noticesection 29section 282section 139(4)service of noticesection 54freason to believeprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 142

Judgments citing Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO

Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…as mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.” 17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000- 01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that the or…

The ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Parimal Sureshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2366/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2366/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. L. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 292B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2366/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner of Shri Parimal Sureshbhai बनाम/ Income-tax Patel Vs. Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad 45/A, Sardar Patel Colony, B/h Telephone Exchange, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABCPP1703G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri B. L. Meena, Sr. DR Shri S.…

Shri Rishav Prakash Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2061/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Rishav Prakash Jain, Vs. Ito, 2683/85, Gali Pattey Wali, Ward-30(4), Naya Bazar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aagpj5075N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…as mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with." 17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000-01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that the ori…

Maestro Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3872/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…[2011] 337 ITR 389 (Delhi) and CIT v. VISION INC. [2012] 73 DTR 201 (Delhi) distinguished.CIT v. RAJEEV SHARMA [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All),CIT v. SALARPUR COLD STORAGE (P.) LTD. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All) and SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS v. ITO [2013] 90 DTR 289 (Mad) relied on.” 13. Further the Delhi High Court has in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia PTE. Ltd. vs. Director General of Income Tax and Ors. has held as under : “Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to proceedings under section 147 / 148 of the Act.The proviso to section 148 of the Act grants liberty to the 10 ITA N…

Maestro Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3871/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…[2011] 337 ITR 389 (Delhi) and CIT v. VISION INC. [2012] 73 DTR 201 (Delhi) distinguished.CIT v. RAJEEV SHARMA [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All),CIT v. SALARPUR COLD STORAGE (P.) LTD. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All) and SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS v. ITO [2013] 90 DTR 289 (Mad) relied on.” 13. Further the Delhi High Court has in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia PTE. Ltd. vs. Director General of Income Tax and Ors. has held as under : “Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to proceedings under section 147 / 148 of the Act.The proviso to section 148 of the Act grants liberty to the 10 ITA N…

Kamla Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…ase laws Paper book pages 49-50) Assessment - Enquiry - Notice - Only upon Examination of Return - Notice u/s 143(2) served upon assessee before filing of Return - Not valid - Assessment completed on basis of Notice invalid - Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 143(2) 90 DTR 289 - Saptha Giri Finance & Investments V/s ITO (Madras) Reassessment — Validity - Absence of notice u/s 143(2) - In completing the assessment u/s 148, compliance of the procedure laid down under ss. 142 and 143(2) is mandatory - Once the admitted fact that beyond notice u/s 142(1), there was no notice issued u/s 143(2) and that admittedly the assess…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dimension Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1105/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

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

…) was mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.” The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000-01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. ITA No. 1105 & C.O. No. 326/Del./2011 9 Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appe…

Padam Chand Dhadda HUF, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 40/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 40/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke M/s Padam Chand Dhadda HUF Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. 1387, Ganesh Bhawan, Tax, Partaniyon Ka Rasta, Circle-1, Johri Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AADHP 6433 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Advocate)…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…s mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.” 17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000- 01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that the or…

ACIT, Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Ici India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2568/KOL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM] I.T.A No.2125/Kol/2005 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 AKZO Nobel India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (formerly known as I C I India Ltd.) Circle-10, Kolkata. (PAN: AAACI6297A (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.2568/Kol/2005 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. AKZO Nobel India Ltd. Circle-10, Kolkata. (formerly known as I C I India Ltd.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 02.03.2017 Date of pronouncement: 08.03.2017 For the Assessee: Sh…

Ici India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2125/KOL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM] I.T.A No.2125/Kol/2005 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 AKZO Nobel India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (formerly known as I C I India Ltd.) Circle-10, Kolkata. (PAN: AAACI6297A (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.2568/Kol/2005 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. AKZO Nobel India Ltd. Circle-10, Kolkata. (formerly known as I C I India Ltd.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 02.03.2017 Date of pronouncement: 08.03.2017 For the Assessee: Sh…

Sh. Rahul Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Bulandshahr

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3537/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirahul Kumar, Ito, C/O. Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-3, Vs. 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Bulandshahr Meerut Pan:Babpk9884Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. VK Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 292BSection 68Section 69

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rahul Kumar, ITO, C/o. Vinod Kumar Goel, Ward-3, Vs. 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Bulandshahr Meerut PAN:BABPK9884Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. VK Goel, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/11/2016 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 13.04.2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee has r…

P.Shanmugam, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 202/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.202/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Shri. P. Shanmugam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.11/1, Arumugam Layout, Non Corporate Ward I (5) Anna Nagar, Peelamedu, [Previously Ward Ii (4)] Coimbatore 641 004. Coimbatore

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 292B

…thorised Representative the said judgment was recalled by Delhi High Court in a review petition filed by the concerned assessee. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sapthagiri Finance & Investments vs. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Silver Line, 383 ITR 455 and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd 383 ITR 448. ITA No. 202/Mds/2016. :- 5 -: 6. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessment was completed based on the return file…

M/S. Pooran Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4289/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…as mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.” 17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000-01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that the ori…

Pooran Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1545/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…as mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.” 17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000-01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that the ori…

M/S Rajit Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3403/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahuay: 2004-05 Rajit Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 430, Sector 28, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. Noida, Up-201 301 (Pan: Aaccr0963N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Ca Respondent By: Shri Ashis Chandra Mohanty, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashis Chandra Mohanty, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with." 17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000-01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that the ori…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2765/Del /2011 ITA No. 3703/Del /2011 [Assessment Year: 2007-08] The Income-tax Officer Vs. M/s Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd Ward 17(4) D-108, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi New Delhi - 17 PAN : AAACV 8190 R CO No. 17/Del/2015 [A/o ITA No. 2765/Del /2011] & CO No. 18/Del/2015 ITA No. 3703/Del /2011 [Assessment Year: 2007-08] M/s Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Income –tax Officer D-108, Panchsheel Enclave Ward 17(4) New Delhi New Delhi - 17 PAN : AAACV 8190 R [Ap…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2765/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2765/Del /2011 ITA No. 3703/Del /2011 [Assessment Year: 2007-08] The Income-tax Officer Vs. M/s Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd Ward 17(4) D-108, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi New Delhi - 17 PAN : AAACV 8190 R CO No. 17/Del/2015 [A/o ITA No. 2765/Del /2011] & CO No. 18/Del/2015 ITA No. 3703/Del /2011 [Assessment Year: 2007-08] M/s Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Income –tax Officer D-108, Panchsheel Enclave Ward 17(4) New Delhi New Delhi - 17 PAN : AAACV 8190 R [Ap…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-08 vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/519/2015HC Delhi14 Oct 2015
Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 201Section 68

…atory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.” 17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000-01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that th…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-08 vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-519/2015HC Delhi14 Oct 2015
Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 201Section 68

…atory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.” 17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (Mad). The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2000-01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that th…