Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa: Pinaki Sengupta Vs. State of Orissa

142 ITR 663Supreme Court of India1983#13414 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(37)Section 10(38)Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 2(14)(b)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)

Issues it is cited on

opportunity of being heard person india total income

Judgments citing Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa: Pinaki Sengupta Vs. State of Orissa

Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

…Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing this appeal. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State of Orissa and Pinaki Sen Gupta vs. State of Orissa (1983) 142 ITR 663 (SC), the case of Vipul Logistic and Warehousing (P.) Ltd., vs. ITO (ITA No.5454/Del/2010 for the A.Y. 2006-07) (Delhi ITAT), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation (ITA No.798/2009), Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Kemi Paul vs. Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 and the Ho…

Mahesh Mittal, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-5, Lucknow

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

ITA 73/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

…uld not be allowed to be enriched or benefited unjustly for act of his own wrongs i.e. non- compliance or non-attendance of hearing. 4.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa: Pinaki Sengupta Vs. State of Orissa (1983) 142 ITR 663(SC) held that “Merely because the assessing authority refused to grant any further Page 4 of 31 adjournments and proceeded to assess to the best of his judgment, it could not be said that he acted in violation of the rules of Natural justice.” In view of this, it can be said that principles of natural justice have been met when notices were issu…

Tejas Transcom (P) Ltd., Burdwan West vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1387/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…usion that there is no evidence or explanation against the order of the Ld. AO. Relying upon the decisions in the cases of (a) Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of 9 Tejas Transcom (P) Ltd. AY: 2010-11 Orissa: Pinaki Sengupta Vs. State of Orissa (1983) 142 ITR 663 (SC), (b) Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 5454/Del/10 for AY 2006-07), (c) CIT Vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ITA No. 798 of 2009), (d) Chemipolvs Union of India Vs. Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 (e) Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) (f) CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (118 ITR 461) (g) whirlpoo…

Paras Brick Field, Mirzapur vs. DCIT(Cent. Cir.), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 15/ALLD/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ed 19.12.2011) has dismissed appeal for non- attending hearing, inferring that the appellant is not effectively pursuing the appeal. 4.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa: Pinaki Sengupta Vs. State of Orissa (1983) 142 ITR 663(SC) held that "Merely because the assessing authority refused to grant any further adjournments and proceeded to assess to the best of his judgment, it could not be said that he acted in violation of the rules of natural justice." In view of this, it can be said that principles of natural justice have been met when notices were issued on several…

Paras Brick Field, Mirzapur vs. DCIT(Central Circle), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 14/ALLD/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jan 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Paras Brick Field, Mirzapur vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 13/ALLD/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jan 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Sh. Suresh Gulati, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1921/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -23(1), Sh. Suresh Gulati, 42, Hemkunt Colony, Greater Kailash-I, New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Agrpg7611E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Chandhok, Advocate Respondent By Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 05/02/2014 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxiii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13, Raising Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Dated 05.02.2014 Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 272A(1)(C) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act Imposed On Non-Compliance Of Summons U/S 131 Of The Act. 2.1 That The Assessee Sought Adjournment In Response To The Notice Dated 28.01.2014 Fixing Hearing On 05.02.2014. The Order Has Been Passed By The Learned Cit(A) On 05.02.2014 Itself Despite The Fact That A Letter For Adjournment Was Filed On The Same Date.

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 250Section 272A(1)(c)

…urnment on one pretext or the other and even not filed written submissions before the undersigned and proceedings remained uncompleted with. 4.4 The Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa: Pinaki Sengupta Vs. State of Orissa (1983) 142 ITR 663 (SC) held that “Merely because the assessing authority refused to grant any further adjournments and proceeded to assess to the best of his judgment, it could not be said that he acted in violation of the rules of natural justice.” In view of this, it can be said that principles of natural justice have been met when notices were issued on several…