Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT

280 ITR 396High Court2006#1684 most cited

What is Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT authority for?

Section 292B of the Income Tax Act applies only to procedural irregularities and cannot cure fundamental jurisdictional defects, such as the non-issue of a mandatory Section 148 notice for reassessment or framing an assessment against a non-existing or dead person.

68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT · Section 148 notice · Section 292B · jurisdictional defect · procedural irregularity · assessment against dead person · non-existing entity · condition precedent · validity of assessment · curable defect

Also reported as

145 Taxmann 186

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 159Section 292BSection 142(1)Section 139(1)Section 263Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 263ofsection 2(7)section 159cost plus methodsection 292blegal representativeinadequate enquirysection 34(1)section 292revision under section 263jdasection 21

Judgments citing Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT

THAMBURAJ BERNET MARY JAYASEELI,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. ITO, WARD2(1), CHENNAI, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3422/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.R. Santhanu, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 148

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non- existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a Thamburaj Bernet Mary Jayaseeli :: 6 :: procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment again…

MARAPPAN BALASUBRAMANIAM (DECEASED), REP BY LEGAL HEIR KAVITHA BALASUBRAMANIAN (WIFE),KARUVALLUR ROAD, COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3367/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3367/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Marappan Balasubramaniam, V. The Ito, Ward 1(2), (Deceased), Tiruppur, Rep By Legal Heir Kavitha Tamil Nadu Balasubramanian (Wife) No. 5, Cormo Garden, Karuvallur Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641107 [Pan: Cqgpg 6518 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 148Section 159Section 292B

…n- existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. Marappan Balasubramanian…

LATE SH SETHURAMAN THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH S NISHAANTH ,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by legal representative of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2615/CHNY/2024[2015-116]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-116

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2615/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Late Shri Sethuraman The Assistant (Rep. By Legal Heir Commissioner Of Income Shri S. Nishaanth), Vs. Tax, O 9/12, Subbarayan Street, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Abhps 3001R (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 14.08.2024 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act') For The Assessment Year 2015-16 (Hereinafter The "Ay").

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 ITA. No:2615/Chny/2024 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…n by the Revenue, was an absolutely invalid return\nas it had a glaring inherent defect which could not be cured in spite\nof the deeming effect of Section 292B of the 1961 Act.\"\n15.\nLikewise, in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh Vs.\nCIT (2006) 280 ITR 396, the Allahabad High Court held that the issue of\nnotice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent\nto the validity of any assessment order to be passed under section 147 of\nthe Act and when such a notice is not issued and assessment made, such\na defect cannot be treated as cured under Section 292B of the Act. The\nCourt…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…of notice or summons. Therefore, the service of the notice on the man- Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO ager who had no written authority to receive the same could not be held to be a proper service on the assessee.' In Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All), it was reiterated that service of valid notice under section 148 was 'the foundation for the initiation of reassessment proceedings and a con-dition precedent for the validity of the notice'. It was held that the Tri-bunal was not right in holding that the notices under section 148 addressed as 'SCR' and the karta 'S' were valid notices fo…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…l Procedure dealing with service of notice or summons. Therefore, the service of the notice on the man- ager who had no written authority to receive the same could not be held to be a proper service on the assessee.' In Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All), it was reiterated that service of valid notice under section 148 was 'the foundation for the initiation of reassessment proceedings and a con-dition precedent for the validity of the notice'. It was held that the Tri-bunal was not right in holding that the notices under section 148 addressed as 'SCR' and the karta 'S' were valid notices fo…

LILY SARKAR, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SUDHIR CHOWDHURY,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2),, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2011-12 Lily Sarkar, Legal Heir Of Ito, Ward-1(2), Durgapur Late Sudhir Chowdhury Vs Mohiskapur Road, B Zone, Durgapur, Dist-Burdwan 713205, W.B-713205. (Pan: Aiypc4460G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chakraboty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 148Section 159

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lily Sarkar, Legal Heir of ITO, Ward-1(2), Durgapur Late Sudhir Chowdhury Vs Mohiskapur Road, B Zone, Durgapur, Dist-Burdwan 713205, W.B-713205. (PAN: AIYPC4460G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Shuvo Chakraboty, A.R Respondent by : Shri Sandip Sarkar, JCIT-Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Comm…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 24. The learned Senior S…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 24. The learned Senior S…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 24. The learned Senior S…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 24. The learned Senior S…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 24. The learned Senior S…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), , CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 24. The learned Senior S…

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

ITA 771/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…the Revenue, was an absolutely invalid return as it had a glaring inherent defect which could not be 21 Marie Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT cured in spite of the deeming effect of Section 292B of the 1961 Act." • Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 396: The Allahabad High Court held that the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment order to be passed under section 147 of the Act and when such a notice is not issued and assessment made, such a defect cannot be treated as cured under Section 292B of the Act. The Court obser…

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

ITA/116/2023HC Delhi26 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

…n by the Revenue, was an absolutely invalid return as it had a glaring inherent defect which could not be cured in spite of the deeming effect of Section 292B of the 1961 Act.” 15. Likewise, in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 396, the Allahabad High Court held that the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment order to be passed under section 147 of the Act and when such a notice is not issued and assessment made, such a defect cannot be treated as cured under Section 292B of the Act. The Court…

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

…on-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396, it has been held that the provisions of section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 24. The learned Senior Standing Counse…

LATE MR. SHANKAR MUKUND SHENAI THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR SANGEETHA SAMIR KOPPIKAR,MUM vs. ITO-23(3)(3), MUM

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

ITA 3241/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3241/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम Late Shri Shankar Mukund Income Tax Officer, 23 (3) Shenai (3) Vs. (Through His Legal Heir Room No.108, Sangeetha Samir Koppikar) Matrumandirtardeo, Grant Flat No. 1202, Anish Tower Road Senapatibapat Marg, Next To Mumbai-400 007 Ruparel College Matunga (W) Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No.Aahps4468D अपीलार्थी / Appellant .. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Puru Jain & Shri RajendrakumarFor Respondent: Shri Anil K. Das
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T.VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3241/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम Late Shri Shankar Mukund Income Tax Officer, 23 (3) Shenai (3) Vs. (Through his Legal Heir Room No.108, Sangeetha Samir Koppikar) MatruMandirTardeo, Grant Flat No. 1202, Anish Tower Road SenapatiBapat Marg, Next to Mumbai-400 007 Ruparel College Matunga (W) Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.PAN/GIR No.AAHPS4468D अपीलार्थी / Appellant .. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by: Shri Puru Jain & Shri Rajendrakumar Ja…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ictional defect / lacuna cannot be cured u/s. 292B /292BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ictional defect / lacuna cannot be cured u/s. 292B /292BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ictional defect / lacuna cannot be cured u/s. 292B /292BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68…

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4