Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.40 seconds)
Documents citing Mahesh Kumar Narula, Kolkata vs Jcit, R-35, Kolkata, Kolkata on 9 December, 2016

Smt. Asha Agrawal W/O Sri Mahendra Kumar ... vs Acit (Central Circle) , Allahabad on 7 December, 2022

128, 129 & 130/ALLD/2017 Smt. Asha Agrawal, Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal(HUF) & M/s. Mahabir Prasad Agrawal(HUF), Allahabad,U.P. Assessment Year: Block Period 01.04.1988 to 23.08.1998 participated in the assessment proceedings , and no such objections were raised by the assesse during the course of assessment proceedings. Moreover, the assesse could not bring any material on record to justify that there was any prejudice cause to her or there was failure of justice, by merely not mentioning of Section 158BD in the notice dated 05th May, 2000 issued by AO under the provisions of Section 158BC. Further, tribunal observed that even if it is presumed to be a defect in the issuance of notice u/s 158BC owing to non mentioning of Section 158BD in the said notice, it is a curable defect as Section 158BC is a procedural section , Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 292B of the 1961 Act . The tribunal also relied upon decision of Special Bench- Amritsar-tribunal decision in the case of Smt. Mahesh KumariBatra v. JCIT, reported in (2005) 95 ITD 152(ASR)(SB) and decision of Madras-tribunal in the case of L. Saroja v. ACIT, reported in (2001) 76 ITD 344(Mad.) . Thus, the tribunal rejected the plea of the assesse and held that Notice u/s 158BC, dated 05th May, 2000 issued by AO , without mentioning Section 158BD , was a valid notice. The assessee is always entitled to raise this plea before higher courts that the tribunal order on this issue suffers from un-sustainability , but we are presently seized in MA Proceedings, and the scope of our interference in MA proceedings is very limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from records within limited mandate of Section 254(2), as also held consistently by all the Courts/tribunal , as we are not entitled to review our own decision. The manner in this MA was filed and argued, leave us with no doubt that the assessee under the garb of MA intended to re-argue the entire matter and expected us to review of our own decision, which is not permissible . Thus , we donot find any merit in MA filed by the assessee , and we dismiss the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Asha Agrawal W/O Sri Mahendra Kumar ... vs Acit (Central Circle) , Allahabad on 29 April, 2022

ITA Nos.128, 129 &130/ALLD/2017 Assessment Year Block Period01/04/1988 to 23/08/1998 Smt. Asha Agrawal , M/s Mahendra Kumar Agrawal(HUF) & M/s Mahabir Prasad Agrawal(HUF), Allahabad, U.P. Admittedly, the assesse was also furnished seized material by Revenue. Thus , even if Section 158BD is not mentioned in the notice issued u/s 158BC , the proceedings are not vitiated as first of all there is no requirement of mentioning Section 158BD in the notice u/s 158BC because for proceedings initiated u/s 158BD , notice is required to be issued u/s 158BC, secondly , the assesse was fully aware of the proceedings initiated against her by Revenue under provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the 1961 Act and the assesse duly participated in the assessment proceedings , and no such objections were raised by the assesse during the course of assessment proceedings. Moreover, the assesse could not bring any material on record to justify that there was any prejudice cause to her or there was failure of justice, by merely not mentioning of Section 158BD in the notice dated 05th May, 2000 issued by AO under the provisions of Section 158BC. Further, even if it is presumed to be a defect in the issuance of notice u/s 158BC owing to non mentioning of Section 158BD in the said notice, it is a curable defect as Section 158BC is a procedural section , Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 292B of the 1961 Act . Refernece is also drawn to decision of Special Bench- Amritsar-tribunal decision in the case of Smt. Mahesh Kumari Batra v. JCIT, reported in (2005) 95 ITD 152(ASR)(SB) and decision of Madras-tribunal in the case of L. Saroja v. ACIT, reported in (2001) 76 ITD 344(Mad.) . Thus, there is no merit in the contentions of the assesse which are hereby rejected , and we hold that Notice u/s 158BC, dated 05th May, 2000 issued by AO , without mentioning Section 158BD , was a valid notice. We order accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 61 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Bhagwandas P.Punjabi, Ahmedabad vs Assessee

Since additional ground is raised by the assessee, therefore, assessee shall have to prove that the same is fit for admission. The onus on assessee is not discharged in this case. The challenge to the notice u/s 158 BD of the IT Act is not made before the authorities below and the assessee filed the return for the block period without any objection. ITAT Amritsar Special Bench in the case of Smt. Mahesh Kumari Batra Vs JCIT 95 ITD 152 held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1