Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.37 seconds)
Smt. Asha Agrawal W/O Sri Mahendra Kumar ... vs Acit (Central Circle) , Allahabad on 7 December, 2022 cites

The Commissioner Of Income ... vs Anil Kumar Chadha on 18 February, 2015

It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Chaddha in ITA no. 86 of 2011, order dated 18.02.2015 and decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gopi Apartment(supra) has not been considered by tribunal while passing appellate order dated 29.04.2022. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of 20 MA Nos. 15, 16 & 17/Alld/2022 arising out of ITA Nos.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana on 12 March, 2014

The tribunal further observed in its order dated 29.04.2022 that the search was conducted by Revenue u/s 132(1) , on 23.08.1998. The assessment in the case of searched persons were completed by Revenue , in the month of August , 2000 (please see AO letter No. F.No. ACIT/Circle- 1/Alld/Mahendra Agarwal Group/2021-22/154, dated 23.12.2021 marked to The Ld. CIT-DR, ITAT , Allahabad , which letter is enclosed by ld. CIT-DR along with its letter dated 15.03.2022 marked to ITAT, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, in the matter of the assessee in ITA no. 128/Alld/2017). Thus, the tribunal noted in its appellate order that assessment in the case of searched persons were completed by the Revenue in the month of August, 2000, while satisfaction note in the case of the assessee was prepared by AO on 26th April, 2000 , which is prior to completion of assessment in the case of searched persons. Thus, the satisfaction note was prepared in the case of the assessee, even before the assessment was completed in the case of searched persons, and hence the same comply with the interpretation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears(supra), and the tribunal held to be a valid satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the searched persons(incidentally AO of the assessee is the same as the AO of searched persons), invoking proceedings 54 MA Nos. 15, 16 & 17/Alld/2022 arising out of ITA Nos. 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 under Chapter XIV-B of the 1961 Act. Thus, the grievance of the assessee on this count was rejected by tribunal vide appellate order dated 29.04.2022. The tribunal in its appellate order dated 29.04.2022, duly noted and considered the judicial decisions relied upon by the assessee, which are recorded in the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee in page number 26-28 of the tribunal order dated 29.04.2022, and it will not be correct to say that the judicial decisions were not considered by tribunal while adjudicating this issue raised by the assessee. It is a different matter that the tribunal while adjudicating this issue relied upon the entire facts and circumstances of the case , to arrive at irresistible conclusion that the contentions raised by the assessee after a long gap of 21 years that no satisfaction note was recorded , lacks merit and infact satisfaction note was duly recorded , and with a gap of 21 years , the same may not be available to be produced by department before the Bench. The plea raised by the assessee as to non recording of satisfaction note may involve mixed question of law and fact, and the assessee may be entitled to raise the same at any stage of proceedings, but it is equally true that the said plea raised after 21 years , is definitely suffering from delays and latches on the part of the assessee, which is fatal to the assessee. The assessee will always be entitled to raise the 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 our own decision, which is not 55 MA Nos. 15, 16 & 17/Alld/2022 arising out of ITA Nos. 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 permissible . Thus , we donot find any merit of the assessee's MA , and we dismiss the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 236 - Full Document

Arun Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 September, 2006

The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. in Appeal(Civil) 3270 of 2003, dated 15.09.2006. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that tribunal erred in relying on preponderance of probabilities in coming to conclusion that the satisfaction note was duly prepared by Revenue , while the said satisfaction note was never produced by Revenue before the tribunal. It was submitted that existence of satisfaction note is a jurisdictional fact, and tribunal could not have assumed jurisdiction and proceeded further to adjudicate the appeal without seeing for itself the existence of satisfaction note.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 129 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs M/S Gopi Apartment on 1 May, 2014

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee opened arguments before Division Bench, and submitted that the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal on 17.06.2021 that no Satisfaction Note was recorded by the AO, and in the absence thereof assessment framed by AO for Block Period is liable to be quashed. It was submitted that no satisfaction note was found in the file of the assesse ,when inspection was conducted by assessee in the year 2021. It was submitted that satisfaction is claimed to be recorded by Revenue on 26.04.2000 which found recorded in block assessment order , but infact there was no satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the searched person . It was submitted that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v.Gopi Apartment in ITA no. 287 & 1329 /2009 dated 30.01.2015 was not considered by tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of Revenue , vide appellate order dated 29.04.2022 . It was submitted that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue in the case of Gopi Apartment(supra) as no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the searched person . Our attention was drawn to page 34 of the appellate order dated 29.04.2022 passed by tribunal, which is an impugned order in this MA proceedings. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the satisfaction note as recorded in assessment order dated 30.05.2002 passed by AO u/s 158BC read with Section 158BD, was antedated. It was submitted that in the order dated 28.05.2022 passed by AO u/s 158BE disposing off objection of the 17 MA Nos. 15, 16 & 17/Alld/2022 arising out of ITA Nos. 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 assessee as to limitation as per direction of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the noting is there in the aforesaid order that satisfaction note was recorded on 26.04.2000. Our attention was drawn to Page Nos. 34 to 45 of the tribunal order dated 29.04.2022, and it was submitted that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the searched person. It was submitted that this issue of not recording of Satisfaction Note was raised by assessee on 24th March, 2021 before the Division Bench of the tribunal during the course of hearing and inspection of records of the Revenue were requested , but in-fact however, on 16th August, 2000 in the case of Mahendra Kumar Agarwal(HUF), this issue of non recording of satisfaction was raised by the said assesse, and our attention was drawn to Page No. 5 of the paper-
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 28 August, 1951

A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record--see Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1952] 21 ITR 333 (Bom.). The power of the officers mentioned in section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an "error apparent on the face of the record." In this case it is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions "error apparent on the face of the record" and 31 MA Nos. 15, 16 & 17/Alld/2022 arising out of ITA Nos. 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 "mistake apparent from the record". But suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent."
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 88 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next