Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra

1 SCC 193Reported decision1990#1509 most cited

What is Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra authority for?

A decree passed by a court or authority without inherent jurisdiction over the subject matter is a nullity, can be challenged at any stage including execution, and does not operate as res judicata, as such a fundamental defect cannot be cured by consent.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra · 1 SCC 193 · inherent jurisdiction · lack of jurisdiction · nullity of order · void assessment · challenge in execution · res judicata · Section 147 · Section 148 · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 151Section 40A(3)Section 145(3)Section 690

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 120(1)section 2(40)section 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)doctrine of mergersection 124(3)

Judgments citing Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t order was non est and we hold accordingly.[Emphasis supplied] 27 Infact, in the aforesaid decision reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i) AIR 1954 SC 340 Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Pawan and Others ii) (1990) 1 SCC 193 Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra iii) (2015) 3 SCC 712. Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona iv) AIR 1975 SC 2065 Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust v) AIR 1974 SC 2089 Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao vi) (2004) 8 SCC 706 Balwant N. Viswamitra and Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mul (dead) through IRS and Others 28 The appellant also see…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t order was non est and we hold accordingly.[Emphasis supplied] 27 Infact, in the aforesaid decision reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i) AIR 1954 SC 340 Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Pawan and Others ii) (1990) 1 SCC 193 Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra iii) (2015) 3 SCC 712. Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona iv) AIR 1975 SC 2065 Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust v) AIR 1974 SC 2089 Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao vi) (2004) 8 SCC 706 Balwant N. Viswamitra and Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mul (dead) through IRS and Others 28 The appellant also see…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t order was non est and we hold accordingly.[Emphasis supplied] 27 Infact, in the aforesaid decision reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i) AIR 1954 SC 340 Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Pawan and Others ii) (1990) 1 SCC 193 Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra iii) (2015) 3 SCC 712. Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona iv) AIR 1975 SC 2065 Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust v) AIR 1974 SC 2089 Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao vi) (2004) 8 SCC 706 Balwant N. Viswamitra and Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mul (dead) through IRS and Others 28 The appellant also see…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t order was non est and we hold accordingly.[Emphasis supplied] 27 Infact, in the aforesaid decision reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i) AIR 1954 SC 340 Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Pawan and Others ii) (1990) 1 SCC 193 Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra iii) (2015) 3 SCC 712. Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona iv) AIR 1975 SC 2065 Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust v) AIR 1974 SC 2089 Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao vi) (2004) 8 SCC 706 Balwant N. Viswamitra and Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mul (dead) through IRS and Others 28 The appellant also see…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t order was non est and we hold accordingly.[Emphasis supplied] 27 Infact, in the aforesaid decision reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i) AIR 1954 SC 340 Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Pawan and Others ii) (1990) 1 SCC 193 Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra iii) (2015) 3 SCC 712. Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona iv) AIR 1975 SC 2065 Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust v) AIR 1974 SC 2089 Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao vi) (2004) 8 SCC 706 Balwant N. Viswamitra and Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mul (dead) through IRS and Others 28 The appellant also see…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t order was non est and we hold accordingly.[Emphasis supplied] 27 Infact, in the aforesaid decision reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i) AIR 1954 SC 340 Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Pawan and Others ii) (1990) 1 SCC 193 Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra iii) (2015) 3 SCC 712. Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona iv) AIR 1975 SC 2065 Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust v) AIR 1974 SC 2089 Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao vi) (2004) 8 SCC 706 Balwant N. Viswamitra and Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mul (dead) through IRS and Others 28 The appellant also see…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t order was non est and we hold accordingly.[Emphasis supplied] 27 Infact, in the aforesaid decision reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: i) AIR 1954 SC 340 Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Pawan and Others ii) (1990) 1 SCC 193 Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra iii) (2015) 3 SCC 712. Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona iv) AIR 1975 SC 2065 Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust v) AIR 1974 SC 2089 Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao vi) (2004) 8 SCC 706 Balwant N. Viswamitra and Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mul (dead) through IRS and Others 28 The appellant also see…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7.2.1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAGHAVBHAI GORDHANBHAI NAROLA, AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed, whereas, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1268/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Sinh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “सी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम!। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(s)/CO by : ITA No(s) Assess- No(s) अपीलाथ# / $%थ# / /COs ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent Year(s) 1. ITA Nos: The ITO Raghavbhai 1266/Ahd/2025 2013-14 Ward 7.2.1 Gordhanbhai Narola Prahladnagar C-105 Road Vikramaditya Soc., Ahmedabad– Opp. Bajarang Ashram 380 015 B/h. Petrol Pump Post. Thakkarbapanagar…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7.2.1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAGHAVBHAI GORDHANBHAI NAROLA, AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed, whereas, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1267/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Sinh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “सी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम!। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(s)/CO by : ITA No(s) Assess- No(s) अपीलाथ# / $%थ# / /COs ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent Year(s) 1. ITA Nos: The ITO Raghavbhai 1266/Ahd/2025 2013-14 Ward 7.2.1 Gordhanbhai Narola Prahladnagar C-105 Road Vikramaditya Soc., Ahmedabad– Opp. Bajarang Ashram 380 015 B/h. Petrol Pump Post. Thakkarbapanagar…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7.2.1, AHMEDABAD vs. RAGHAVBHAI GORDHANBHAI NAROLA, AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed, whereas, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1266/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Sinh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “सी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम!। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(s)/CO by : ITA No(s) Assess- No(s) अपीलाथ# / $%थ# / /COs ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent Year(s) 1. ITA Nos: The ITO Raghavbhai 1266/Ahd/2025 2013-14 Ward 7.2.1 Gordhanbhai Narola Prahladnagar C-105 Road Vikramaditya Soc., Ahmedabad– Opp. Bajarang Ashram 380 015 B/h. Petrol Pump Post. Thakkarbapanagar…

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2231/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

…t to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." :- 11 -: 18. The Mumbai bench of this Tribunal made a reference to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193 and the decisions in the case of Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona (2015) 3 SCC 712. The Mumbai bench also held that if order of assessment passed u/s 147 of the Act was nullity in the eyes of law then that order cannot be revised by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act by CIT. The Mumbai Bench has in this regard placed reliance on the decision o…

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 427/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…ase of "Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors vs Dir. Health Services, Haryana" in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013 decided on July 11, 2013, while relying upon another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra" (1990) 1 SCC 193 and further placing reliance on the other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors.", (1976) 1 SCC 496; "Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan", AIR 1954 SC 340; and "Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal", AIR 1973 SC 2391 has observed that where a statute places obligation and enforces the performa…

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

ITA 426/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…\"Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors vs Dir. Health Services, Haryana\" in Civil\nAppeal No.5476 of 2013 decided on July 11, 2013, while relying upon another\ndecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of \"Sushil Kumar Mehta v.\nGobind Ram Bohra\" (1990) 1 SCC 193 and further placing reliance on the other\ndecisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of \"Premier Automobiles\nLtd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors.\", (1976) 1 SCC 496; \"Kiran Singh v. Chaman\nPaswan\", AIR 1954 SC 340; and \"Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal\", AIR\n1973 SC 2391 has observed that where a statute places obligation and enforces\nt…

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 425/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…ase of "Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors vs Dir. Health Services, Haryana" in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013 decided on July 11, 2013, while relying upon another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra" (1990) 1 SCC 193 and further placing reliance on the other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors.", (1976) 1 SCC 496; "Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan", AIR 1954 SC 340; and "Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal", AIR 1973 SC 2391 has observed that where a statute places obligation and enforces the performa…

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 424/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…ase of "Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors vs Dir. Health Services, Haryana" in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013 decided on July 11, 2013, while relying upon another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra" (1990) 1 SCC 193 and further placing reliance on the other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors.", (1976) 1 SCC 496; "Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan", AIR 1954 SC 340; and "Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal", AIR 1973 SC 2391 has observed that where a statute places obligation and enforces the performa…

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. PR, CIT 20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2641/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. Cit-20, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aakpj1872B

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 263Section 69C

…at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." 8.3. This judgment was subsequently followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193, wherein an issue arose whether a decree can be challenged at the stage of execution and whether a decree which remained uncontested operates as res-judicata qua the parties affected by it. Hon'ble apex court , taking support from aforesaid judgment, observed as under : "In the light of this position in law the quest ion for determination is whethe…

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. ITO, SUNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prem Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149

…very authority of the\nCourt to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even\nby consent of parties.\"\n8. 3. This judgment was subsequently followed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the landmark case of Sushil Kumar Mehta vs Gobind\nRam Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193, wherein an issue arose whether\na decree can be challenged at the stage of execution and whether\na decree which remained uncontested operates as res-judicata\nqua the parties affected by it. Hon'ble apex court, taking\nsupport from aforesaid judgment, observed as under:\n\"In the light of this position in law the question for\ndetermination is wh…

THOMAS VICTOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2987/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr.R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271D

…the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." 18. The Mumbai bench of this Tribunal made a reference to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193 and the decisions in the case of Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona (2015) 3 SCC 712. The Mumbai bench also held that if order of assessment passed u/s 147 of the Act was nullity in the eyes of law then that order cannot be revised by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act by CIT. The Mumbai Bench has in this regard placed reliance on the decisio…

THE CHENNAI CO-OP. SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP. AND SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 151ASection 263Section 80ASection 80P

…he Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." 10. The Mumbai bench of this Tribunal made a reference to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193 and the decisions in the case of The Chennai Co-op. Societies- Employees Co-op. T & C Society Ltd :: 8 :: Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona (2015) 3 SCC 712. The Mumbai bench also held that if order of assessment passed u/s 147 of the Act was nullity in the eyes of law then that order cannot be revised by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act b…

RAHUL RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, GHAZIABAD

ITA 844/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 147Section 151Section 263

…the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." 8. 3. This judgment was subsequently followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193, wherein an issue arose whether a decree can be challenged at the stage of execution and whether a decree which remained uncontested operates as res-judicata qua the parties affected by it. Hon'ble apex court, taking support from aforesaid judgment, observed as under : "In the light of this position in law the quest ion for determination is whether…

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4