Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (3.80 seconds)
Documents citing Nawal Kishore And Sons Jewellers vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 August, 2003

Raj Kumar Chawla And Ors. vs Income Tax Officer on 31 January, 2005

28. The learned Departmental Representative Shri Rajnish Kumar emphasized that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 143 and other provisions mentioned therein are to be applied to the extent possible/practicable and not in the literal sense. The proviso in Section 143(2), which is a part of jurisdictional aspect, would be inapplicable to assessment/reassessment to be made under Section 147 of the Act. Reference has been made to the decision of special Bench at Lucknow of the Tribunal in the case of Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewelers v. Dy. CIT (supra), particularly, contending that the jurisdiction to assess or reassess is concerned by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. We, however, are not inclined to agree with the learned Departmental Representative for the reasons given in subsequent paragraphs.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 92 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs All Saints Christian Educational ... on 29 September, 2006

17. We have heard the parties with reference to precedents on record and perused the material carefully. The jurisdiction to make assessment for the block period vests with the AO immediately after an action under Section 132 is taken on a person. In this case, it is an admitted position that action under Section 132 was taken on 10th Dec, 1999 as is evident from copy of Panchnama placed at paper book pp. 48 and 49. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers v. Dy. CIT (supra) has already entertained a view that non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) or under Section 142 of the Act within one year from, the end of the month in which the block return is filed is not fatal to the jurisdiction to make assessment. Non-issuance of notice is merely an irregularity and if sufficient opportunity has been given by issuance of notices prior to completion of assessment, the same cannot be made a basis to quash the assessment. Moreover, there has been an amendment with respect to the issuance of notice beyond a period of one year which has been made w.r.e.f. 1st Oct., 1991. If the notice is issued beyond a period of one year from the end of the month in which the return was filed, such notice shall be deemed to be a valid notice. This amendment shall also apply with full force to the assessment made for block period. In that view of the matter and as has also fairly been admitted by the learned Counsel for assessee, the learned CIT(A) could not have come to the conclusion that by non-issuance of notice within the period of one year from the end of the month in which return was filed will render such notices as invalid and consequently quashed the assessment. The respondent was given sufficient time by issuance of notices under Sections 143(2) and 142 of the Act much prior to completion of assessment so that there is no denial of adequate opportunity to him to show that there was no undisclosed income assessable for the block period in his case. There was thus, no legal infirmity committed by AO in making block assessment. The decision taken by learned CIT(A), therefore, being contrary to the provision of law, is hereby set aside.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs R.P. Singh on 7 September, 2007

3.4.2. I have considered the arguments of the appellant. The appellant's plea that the limitation period under Section 143(2) shall be applicable to a block assessment cannot be accepted because the block assessment procedure is in itself a complete code and the applicability of provisions of Sections 143, 144 or 145 to the block assessment are only helping provisions. Once the AO assumed valid jurisdiction under Section 158BC no other provision can invalidate the proceedings because otherwise the purpose of enacting independent block assessment provisions shall be defeated. Hon'ble Special Bench of the Delhi (sic-Lucknow) Tribunal in the case of Nawal Kishoie & Sons Jewellers v. Dy. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (Lucknow) (SB) 362 : (2003) 87 ITD 407 (Lucknow) (SB) has held that the time limit for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is not applicable in the case of block assessment made pursuant to search operation. The decisions relied upon by the appellant does not pertain to block period (search and seizure assessment), hence the same are distinguishable and not relevant to the case of the appellant. In view of the jurisdictional Tribunal's decision the arguments of the appellant are without any merit and the same are dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Valueline Securities (I) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner on 22 May, 2006

(13) Even in respect of the decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Courtin the case of Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1994) 209 ITR 434, and Special Bench of the ITAT, Lucknow, in the case of Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers v. Dy. CIT (2003) 87 ITD 407, the proposition is that theassessee, having participated in the assessment proceedings, cannotmention that he has not understood the notice. That is not the case of theassessee. The case of the assessee is that the assessing officer issued notice under Section 158BC, which was rightly understood to be so by theappellant. But, the assessment has to be completed within the timementioned under Section 158BE(1), and the assessment was not completed within the said time and, therefore, the assessment got barred bylimitation. If the statutory provision mentions clearly that an assessment has to be completed within the period specified therein, the assessing officer cannot extend such time-limit, though the assessment was made in substance and effect, in conformity with the provisions of the law. The learned Counsel thus contended that all the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative have to be rejected and the claim of the appellant that the assessment was barred by limitation be uphelearned
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jyoti Pat Ram vs Income Tax Officer on 26 August, 2004

16. However, a very interesting situation has arisen in this case. The notice under Section 143(2) has been issued prior to filing of the return (the date on which the assessee informed the AO that original return may be treated as a return in response to notice under Section 148). It is settled law that notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory if the AO wants to vary the returned income. Except in the cases of prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a), Section 143(2) confers jurisdiction on the AO to make regular assessment. Unless this notice is issued, the whole assessment order will be invalid. The Lucknow Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers (supra) has considered this issue and held that notice under Section 143(2) confers jurisdiction on the AO to make assessment. As the issue of notice under Section 143(2) confers jurisdiction, the same was mandatory.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.P. Shanmugaraj vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 December, 2005

In view of the legal position discussed above and respectfully following the case law of the Hon'ble apex Court in Dr. Piatap Singh and Anr. (supra) and the decision of the Tribunal, Special Bench, Lucknow, in Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers (supra), we are of the considered view that non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act for completing the block assessment, cannot be held as invalid or null and void. By issuing notice under Section 158BC or 158BD of the Act, as the case may be, the action for framing the block assessment is validly laid out by asking the assessee to file the return. Even the time-limit for completion of block assessment starts from the date of issuance of last warrant of authorization under the provisions of Section 132 of the Act and not by issuance of notice under Section 158BC or 158BD of the Act. In view of this, non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act can, at the most, be held as irregularity which is curable and not a nullity.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mrs. Mudra G. Nanavati vs The Dcit on 23 May, 2008

It is contended that while a non-jurisdictional High Court is not binding on us, a Special Bench decision of this Tribunal is certainly binding on us. It is submitted that this very issue has received consideration of a Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers v. Dy. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (Lucknow) (SB) 362: (2003) 87 ITD 407 (Lucknow) (SB) and the Special Bench has decided the issue against the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 31 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Fertilizer Traders [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 13 February, 2004

For evidence he also added that his cash credit limit as per cash credit account No. 292 bears the limit of Rs. 75,000 only and as such the huge amount referred to above is beyond his capacity. Apart from this, a peculiar phenomenon was noticed when he was asked to explain why the payment against bill of Rs. 45,000 was made with your balance appearing in the same ledger. In reply the advance payment or outstanding balance was denied. It was also claimed that the entries appearing therein are not correct and tenable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 82 - Cited by 84 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next