Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate

234 ITR 187High Court1998#3793 most cited

What is Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate authority for?

An assessment order dispatched after the prescribed time limit is time-barred and void, even if the dispatch date is before the period of limitation for service.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer · Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate · section 143(3) · section 153 · time barred assessment · assessment order dispatched late · void assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 132Section 144Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

impermissible avoidance arrangementsection 245hsection 245hawarrant of authorisationsection 245csection 153(2a)section 153(c)section 90asection 202section 245dsection 144basection 142a

Judgments citing Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate

Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

…only unilateral in a sense and not irrevocable; it becomes bilateral or binding only on communication." 3.8 Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cammi.tsioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Kappumalai Estate 234 ITR 187 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "The Hon'ble Court observed that this court had taken the view that to make the order complete and effective it should be issued so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned, for any possible change or modifications This should be done within the prescribed period; though the actual…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Kemtani & Associates, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…surrounding circumstances raising considerable doubts with regard thereto, entitling drawing an adverse inference. The reliance on decisions by the assessee, viz. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand & Sons [2008] 4 DTR 162 (P&H); CAIT v. Kappumalai Estate [1998] 234 ITR 187 (Ker), etc., is apposite. 5. We, in view of the foregoing, hold the impugned revision order as not passed on 31/03/2015, so that it is barred by time u/s. 263(2). The same, as well as the ensuing assessment, disputed by the Revenue, accordingly, fail. It is not necessary therefore to travel to the other Grounds of the Assessee’s appeal or that b…

M/S Kemtani & Associates vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 71/JAB/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…surrounding circumstances raising considerable doubts with regard thereto, entitling drawing an adverse inference. The reliance on decisions by the assessee, viz. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand & Sons [2008] 4 DTR 162 (P&H); CAIT v. Kappumalai Estate [1998] 234 ITR 187 (Ker), etc., is apposite. 5. We, in view of the foregoing, hold the impugned revision order as not passed on 31/03/2015, so that it is barred by time u/s. 263(2). The same, as well as the ensuing assessment, disputed by the Revenue, accordingly, fail. It is not necessary therefore to travel to the other Grounds of the Assessee’s appeal or that b…

The Principal, Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Andhra Pradesh vs. M/S Nidan, Infront of Dig Office, Berhampur

ITA/150/2018HC Orissa13 Jul 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 132Section 144Section 153Section 153B

…was dated 30th December, 2016. Relying on decisions in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker), the ITAT came to the conclusion that the order of assessment had to be made on or before 31st December, 2016 and since it was despatched only on 7th January, 2017 and delivered to the Assessee on 9th January, 2017 it was time barred. 6. Mr. Chimanka, learned counsel for the Revenue places before the Court copies of the judgment…

The Principal, Commissioner of It (Central) vs. M/S Nidan, Berhampur

ITA/155/2018HC Orissa13 Jul 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 132Section 144Section 153Section 153B

…was dated 30th December, 2016. Relying on decisions in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker), the ITAT came to the conclusion that the order of assessment had to be made on or before 31st December, 2016 and since it was despatched only on 7th January, 2017 and delivered to the Assessee on 9th January, 2017 it the time barred. 6. Mr. Chimanka, learned counsel for the Revenue places before the Court copies of the judgment…

Serene Country Owners welfare Association vs. Income Tax Officer

ITTA/155/2018HC Telangana20 Jan 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…tion. The ld. counsel also referred to the following decisions for the above preposition:- i) CIT vs Chetan Gupta (2015) 94 CCH 13 (Del); ii) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand And Sons in ITA No. 522 of 2007 dated 13.03.2008; iii) AGIT Vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker); iv) Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 (Ker); v) Cf. K. Mohd. Osman Saheb & Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1971) 27 STC 303 (AP); and vi) Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Ramakishitah & Co. (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC) 18. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the counsel submitted that the assessee has accepted an amoun…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala vs. Shri Subhajit Paul, Agartala

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

…the same effect are the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court, which are in the case of (i) K. Joseph Jacob vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer & another (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and (ii) Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker). 14. The Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal also held similarly in the case of Shanti Lal Godawat and Others vs. ACIT, reported in 126 TTJ (Jd) 135. 15. In view of above plethora of judicial precedents, in our considered opinion, the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of Binani Industries Ltd., (supra)…

Pankaj Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3557/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu, Acountant Member

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the same effect are the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which are in the case of (i) K. Joseph Jacob vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer & another (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and (ii) Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker). 14. The Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal also held similarly in the case of Shanti Lal Godawat and Others vs. ACIT, reported in 126 TTJ (Jd) 135. 15. In view of above plethora of judicial precedents, in our considered opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of Binani Industries Ltd., (supra…

Pankaj Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3556/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu, Acountant Member

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the same effect are the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which are in the case of (i) K. Joseph Jacob vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer & another (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and (ii) Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker). 14. The Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal also held similarly in the case of Shanti Lal Godawat and Others vs. ACIT, reported in 126 TTJ (Jd) 135. 15. In view of above plethora of judicial precedents, in our considered opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of Binani Industries Ltd., (supra…

Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…IT(DR), Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted on the limitation issue that the term used in sec 153B is making an order of assessment before the prescribed date and in view of the judgments of the Kerala High Court in the cases of CAGIT vs Kappumalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker) and another judgment reported in 69 STC 62 and other decisions of 327 STC 303 (AP) and 93 STC 406 (SC), the order to make the assessment is complete and effective once the same goes beyond the control of authority concerned. It was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessing officer in any case should have taken care to p…