Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. v. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court

154 ITR 547High Court1985#9423 most cited

What is Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. v. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are void if the Assessing Officer fails to provide the assessee with the reasons for reopening the assessment, even after reminders. This failure renders the initiation of proceedings without jurisdiction.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. v. Shikera (K.K.) · 154 ITR 547 · section 147 · section 148 · reopening of assessment · reasons for reopening · notice under section 148 · tangible material · change of opinion · income escaping assessment · notice without DIN · AO failure to furnish reasons

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)live linkmere change of opinionincome escaping assessmentescapement of incomechange of opinionreason to believereopening of assessmenttangible materialnotice under section 148reassessment proceedingsincome-tax officer

Judgments citing Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. v. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, (CIT) (V.C.)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153C

…i v. ITO (1967) 64 ITR 516, 521(AP); Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO (1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC); Bhimraj Panna Lal v. CIT, (1957) 32 ITR 289 (Pat); M. Varadarajulu v. ITO, (1974) 97 ITR 476 (Mad.); Siesta Steel Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. K.K. Shikare, (1985) 154 ITR 547 (Bom.) and ChunnilalSurajmal v. CIT, (1986) 160 ITR 141 (Pat.), it is submitted that a roving enquiry in to the whole question as to has the expenditures actually being incurred in relation to the sub- contracting income with a hope that it might land the Id.AO somewhere wherefrom he can find out that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessme…

Raghunandan Bhomia, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 5724/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…A No.494 of 2014 have held that in absence of supply of reasons recorded for issue of reopening notice then, the entire re- assessment is without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble High Court has followed the judgment of Siesta Steel Construction (P) Ltd., reported in 154 ITR 547; and CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., reported in 340 ITR 56. Apart from that there is another judgment in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics reported in 10 Raghunandan Bhomia 61 taxmann.com 308 (Bombay) wherein Hon’ble Court has observed and held as under:- “8. We find that the impugned order merely applies the decision of the Apex Court in…

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.517/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Nagpur Appellant v/s Shri Govinddas Govardhan Daga Respondent 5, Temple Road, Civil Lines Nagpur 440 001 PAN – AAWPD9591R C.O. no.15/Nag./2017 (Arising out of ITA no.517/Nag./2016) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Govinddas Govardhan Daga Cross Objector 5, Temple Road, Civil Lines (Original Respondent) Nagpur 440 001 PAN – AAWPD9591R v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Respondent Circle-2,…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.3768/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Addl.CIT, Vs. IRCON International Ltd., Special Range-4, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACI0684H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Gurmel Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Date of hearing 06.01.2021 Date of pronouncement 22.01.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 10/02/2017 passed by the L…

Sri Jayadev College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khurda vs. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…eopening notice were never communicated to the respondent-assessee inspite of repeated requests. Thus,. The grievance of the revenue on above count is unsustainable”. 10. Still further, in the case of Seista Steel Construction (P) Ltd. vs K.K..Shikare (1985) 154 ITR 547 (Bombay) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that in the absence of supply of reasons recorded for issue of reopening notice the assessment order will be without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed.” 11. Again, in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bombay) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that non- supply of reason…

Kashan Ghaswala, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8126/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…essee despite specific request, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed as null and void. The point of difference no.(ii) is answered accordingly." 20. In the case of Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. vs. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court [1985] 154 ITR 547 held that the reassessment proceedings are required to be quashed when the AO did not care to furnish the reasons to the assessee and relevant paragraphs read as under: ".............Shri Khari, Ld Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in spite of several reminders from the petitioner, respondent no.1 has not cared to furn…

Hotel City Palace, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8125/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…essee despite specific request, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed as null and void. The point of difference no.(ii) is answered accordingly." 20. In the case of Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. vs. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court [1985] 154 ITR 547 held that the reassessment proceedings are required to be quashed when the AO did not care to furnish the reasons to the assessee and relevant paragraphs read as under: ".............Shri Khari, Ld Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in spite of several reminders from the petitioner, respondent no.1 has not cared to furn…

Alliance Hotels, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8124/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…essee despite specific request, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed as null and void. The point of difference no.(ii) is answered accordingly." 20. In the case of Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. vs. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court [1985] 154 ITR 547 held that the reassessment proceedings are required to be quashed when the AO did not care to furnish the reasons to the assessee and relevant paragraphs read as under: ".............Shri Khari, Ld Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in spite of several reminders from the petitioner, respondent no.1 has not cared to furn…

Alliance Hotels, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4074/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…essee despite specific request, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed as null and void. The point of difference no.(ii) is answered accordingly." 20. In the case of Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. vs. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court [1985] 154 ITR 547 held that the reassessment proceedings are required to be quashed when the AO did not care to furnish the reasons to the assessee and relevant paragraphs read as under: ".............Shri Khari, Ld Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in spite of several reminders from the petitioner, respondent no.1 has not cared to furn…

Alliance Hotels, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4073/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…essee despite specific request, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed as null and void. The point of difference no.(ii) is answered accordingly." 20. In the case of Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. vs. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court [1985] 154 ITR 547 held that the reassessment proceedings are required to be quashed when the AO did not care to furnish the reasons to the assessee and relevant paragraphs read as under: ".............Shri Khari, Ld Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in spite of several reminders from the petitioner, respondent no.1 has not cared to furn…

Central Warehousing Corporaiton vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA - 464 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 10Section 11BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 3

…t to tax by reopening the assessment merely on account of subsequently the assessing officer forming an opinion that earlier he had erred in allowing the expenditure or the deduction; ( See- Siesta Steel Construction Pvt Ltd Vs . K.K.Shikare & Ors [1985] 154 ITR 547, Satpal Automobile Co. ITR [1983] 141 ITR 450, Gopal Films Vs. ITO . [1983] 139 ITR 566, CWT Vs . Manilal C. Desai [1973]91 ITR 135(MP)” 18. His last submission was that in any case Orissa Ware Housing (supra) could not be made the foundation for reopening the assessment. According to Mr. Syali, the decision in the case of Orissa Wareho…

Siesta Steel Construction P. Ltd. v. Shikera (K.K.), Honble Bombay High Court (154 ITR 547) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax