Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Gaya Prasad Pathak vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 12 February, 2007

Sushil Kumar Singhal, Shahdol vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 14 September, 2022

3.2 We find no merit in the assessee‟s claim. The assessment under reference is not u/s. 153A, i.e., consequent to search or requisition in the assessee‟s case, invalidating his Ground-1 before us. The impugned assessment is u/s. 143(3), i.e., a regular assessment, as defined u/s. 2(40) of the Act, which does not require search or requisition as a jurisdictional fact. Rather, but for the fact that the authorisation u/s. 132 stands admitted by the Revenue to have not been issued on the assessee, but instead on a like named person, i.e., of it being a case of mistaken identity, the Tribunal, as explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Gaya Prasad Pathak vs. CIT [2007] 290 ITR 128 (MP), is not competent to decide on the validity or legality of a search u/s. 132 or a requisition u/s. 132A. As explained by it, a valid authorisation u/s. 132A is not a jurisdictional or even an adjudicatory fact for an assessment u/s. 158BC which, as an assessment u/s. 153A, was an assessment pursuant to a search or requisition under Chapter XIV-B of the Act, since discontinued.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Rajora, Bhopal vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 March, 2013

13. A Division bench of this Court in Gaya Prasad Pathak vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others [(2007) 290 ITR 128 (MP)] has considered that in the assessment proceedings the authorities have no power to consider the validity of authorization under section 132 (1) of the Act and the remedy available to the petitioners is by way of filing writ petition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Avtarsingh Khurana,, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Cit, (Osd) Range - 1,, Ahmedabad on 7 September, 2017

13. A Division Bench of this Court in Gaya Prasad Pathak Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others (2007) 290 ITR 128 (MP) has considered that in the assessment proceedings the authorities have no power to consider the validity of authorization under section 132(1) of the Act and the remedy available to the petitioners is by way of filing writ petition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Shri Prashan Pathak on 12 January, 2015

As the first question of law involved in the matter with regard to jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to interfere into an authorization issued under Section 132-A has already been dealt with and decided in the case of Gaya Prasad Pathak (supra), we have no hesitation in holding and answering the issue No. 1 in favour of the revenue for the same grounds and reasons which have already been considered and decided by this Court in the case of Gaya Prasad Pathak (supra). Accordingly, the answer of question No. 1 by holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or authority to interfere with and quash a warrant of authorization issued under Section 132- A of the Income Tax Act for the simple reasons that an requisition issued under Section 132-A is not a proceeding for the assessment and is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of Tribunal while considering the question of assessment. Once issue No. 1 which was dealt with by the Tribunal is answered in favour of the department the second question need not be answered now as it has not been gone into by the Tribunal after answering the issue No. 1 in favour of the assessee.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Smt. Madhu Khurana, Ahmedabad vs The Dy.Cit, (Osd), Range-1, Ahmedabad on 8 February, 2018

13. A Division Bench of this Court in Gaya Prasad Pathak Vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax and others (2007) 290 ITR 12& (MP) has considered that in the assessment proceedings the authorities have no power to consider the validity of authorization under section 132(1) of /be Act and the remedy available to the petitioners is by way of filing writ petition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1