Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT

280 ITR 396High Court2006#1669 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 366,005 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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5022/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/) Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2005] 145 Taxman 1 56 [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All), it had been held that such a defect cannot be treated as a procedural one and once it is found that the assessment is framed in the name of a non-existent entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act); and, (xz) thus…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5021/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/) Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2005] 145 Taxman 1 56 [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All), it had been held that such a defect cannot be treated as a procedural one and once it is found that the assessment is framed in the name of a non-existent entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act); and, (xz) thus…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/) Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2005] 145 Taxman 1 56 [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All), it had been held that such a defect cannot be treated as a procedural one and once it is found that the assessment is framed in the name of a non-existent entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act); and, (xz) thus…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4561/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/) Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2005] 145 Taxman 1 56 [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All), it had been held that such a defect cannot be treated as a procedural one and once it is found that the assessment is framed in the name of a non-existent entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act); and, (xz) thus…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4560/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/) Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2005] 145 Taxman 1 56 [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All), it had been held that such a defect cannot be treated as a procedural one and once it is found that the assessment is framed in the name of a non-existent entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act); and, (xz) thus…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4559/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/) Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2005] 145 Taxman 1 56 [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All), it had been held that such a defect cannot be treated as a procedural one and once it is found that the assessment is framed in the name of a non-existent entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act); and, (xz) thus…

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Pride Residency (P) Ltd. (in the Case of Spn Milk Products Inds. P.Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4182/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Dhingra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T Kipgen, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 264

…st SLP was dismissed on 2nd November, 2017), Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court),CIT Vs. Harjinder Kaur(2009) 222 CTR (P&H) 254 andSri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 280 ITR 396 (All), it had been held that such a defect cannot be treated as a procedural one and once it is found that the assessment is framed in the name of a non- existent entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act and, thus the assessment orders framed by t…

M/S. Gyanshankar Investment & Trading Co. P. Ltd.(Before Amalgamation M/S. Stellar Credit& E-Trading P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act. Order was in the name of non-existing person and hence void and illegal. 19. Spice Infotainment Ltd. (supra) refers to decision of Allahabad High Court in Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT (2006] 280 ITR 396/[2005] 145 Taxman 186 (All.). We have examined the decision in Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh (supra) and would observe that facts were peculiar. There was oral partition of the Hindu undivided family, M/s Munna La! Moti Lal. on death of the 'Karta' Moti Lal. Capital was divided amongst three brothers, who were the coparceners. Controversy was…

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

ITA 806/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…ish Puri [1987] 163 ITR 458 (Raj)  CIT v Sobhagmal Mishrilal Semlavada [1997] 223 ITR 554 (MP)  CWT v Srivastava (J.K.) and Sons [1983] 142 ITR 183 (All )  CIT v Suresh Chandra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj)  Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All)  CIT v Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF) [2005] 277 ITR 197 (All)  Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v ITO 12 DTR 534 (Ahd 'Tri)  Suraj Mal (HUF) v ITO (2007) 110 TTJ 834 (Del TM) 1.5 In view of the above, the order passed under section 143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.Proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable:- [Ground No. 4,…

Karnataka Housing Board vs. Addl.DIT

ITA 394/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…ish Puri [1987] 163 ITR 458 (Raj)  CIT v Sobhagmal Mishrilal Semlavada [1997] 223 ITR 554 (MP)  CWT v Srivastava (J.K.) and Sons [1983] 142 ITR 183 (All )  CIT v Suresh Chandra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj)  Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All)  CIT v Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF) [2005] 277 ITR 197 (All)  Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v ITO 12 DTR 534 (Ahd 'Tri)  Suraj Mal (HUF) v ITO (2007) 110 TTJ 834 (Del TM) 1.5 In view of the above, the order passed under section 143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.Proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable:- [Ground No. 4,…

Late S.Suresh Legal Heir by S.Mahesh, Secundrabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 1134/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Smt. Kanika Agarwal,DR
Section 148Section 2(14)Section 282Section 50C

…ntity 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 [reported in (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." 7. Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Quantech Global Services Ltd

ITA/439/2018HC Karnataka04 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 268

…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 292Bof the 1961 Act “15. Likewise, in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 396, the Allahabad 14 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 t…

Vedanta Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

ITA 9495/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 32

…ceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act." 15. Likewise, in the case of 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 13 Vedanta Ltd. defect cannot be treated as cured under Section 292B of the Act…

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

…ngh also referred to Section 292 BB of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision in CIT v. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad [2006] 280 ITR 541/[2005] 147 Taxman 441 (All.); Hotline International (P.) Ltd. (supra); Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/[2005] 145 Taxman 186 (All.); P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT [1988] 170 ITR 80/[1987] 35 Taxman 131 (Ker.); Venad Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 19 ITA 168/JP/2020_ M/s Girirajkripa Developers P ltd. Vs ITO 463/212 Taxman 20/[2011] 16 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi) and Mayawati v. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 349 (Delhi). 23. In reply, Mr. Ajay Vohra submitted…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S R R Gold Palace, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 906/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 124(3)Section 153ASection 170

…s therefore, clearly unsustainable - CIT v. Orton Motors [2006] 200 CTR [P&H] 604; [2005] 275 ITR 595 [P&H], CIT vs. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 222 CTR [P&H] 254; [2009] 19 DTR [P&H] 211 and Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh vs. CIT [2005] 196 CTR [All] 416; [2006] 280 ITR 396 [all] relied on" 5.8 I also find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD., in 380 ITR 272 [Kar] has also taken the same view of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and has also held that the framing of an assessment on a non-existing entity or a person is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictio…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S R R Gold Palace, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 903/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 124(3)Section 153ASection 170

…s therefore, clearly unsustainable - CIT v. Orton Motors [2006] 200 CTR [P&H] 604; [2005] 275 ITR 595 [P&H], CIT vs. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 222 CTR [P&H] 254; [2009] 19 DTR [P&H] 211 and Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh vs. CIT [2005] 196 CTR [All] 416; [2006] 280 ITR 396 [all] relied on" 5.8 I also find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD., in 380 ITR 272 [Kar] has also taken the same view of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and has also held that the framing of an assessment on a non-existing entity or a person is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictio…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S R R Gold Palace, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 905/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 124(3)Section 153ASection 170

…s therefore, clearly unsustainable - CIT v. Orton Motors [2006] 200 CTR [P&H] 604; [2005] 275 ITR 595 [P&H], CIT vs. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 222 CTR [P&H] 254; [2009] 19 DTR [P&H] 211 and Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh vs. CIT [2005] 196 CTR [All] 416; [2006] 280 ITR 396 [all] relied on" 5.8 I also find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD., in 380 ITR 272 [Kar] has also taken the same view of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and has also held that the framing of an assessment on a non-existing entity or a person is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictio…

M.Raghurama Raju L/R of (Late) M Radha Mohan Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/VIZ/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.529/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) M Raghurama Raju Vs Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) M.Radha Mohan Raju Ward-2(2) Flat No.306, Charan Castle Visakhapatnam Sairam Colony Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agxpm9324L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt U Mini Chandran, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: Delay: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Representative Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In I.T.A.No.0111/2015-16/Ito,W-2(2),Vsp/2019-20 Dated 14.06.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2007-08 With A Delay Of 3 Days.

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt U Mini Chandran, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 50C

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.529/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) M Raghurama Raju Vs Income Tax Officer L/R of (Late) M.Radha Mohan Raju Ward-2(2) Flat No.306, Charan Castle Visakhapatnam Sairam Colony Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [PAN : AGXPM9324L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada reported in [b]. 223 ITR 554 (MP); CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta reported in 173 ITR [c]. 407 (Raj); [d]. CIT v. Rohtas reported in 311 ITR 460 (P &H); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT reported [e]. in 280 ITR 396 [All] CIT vs. Associated Cement & Steel Agencies [1984] [f]. 147 ITR 776 [Bom.], In all the above cited cases it has been held that where statutory notices initiating assessment were issued by treating assessee in a particular status the same cannot be changed while framing the assessment. [vi]. The Appellant also places reliance on the parity of…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada reported in [b]. 223 ITR 554 (MP); CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta reported in 173 ITR [c]. 407 (Raj); [d]. CIT v. Rohtas reported in 311 ITR 460 (P &H); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT reported [e]. in 280 ITR 396 [All] CIT vs. Associated Cement & Steel Agencies [1984] [f]. 147 ITR 776 [Bom.], In all the above cited cases it has been held that where statutory notices initiating assessment were issued by treating assessee in a particular status the same cannot be changed while framing the assessment. [vi]. The Appellant also places reliance on the parity of…