Monday, October 24, 2011

Compilations of case law: General Topics: PROCEDURAL LAPSE – When fatal ?

PROCEDURAL LAPSE – When fatal ?


A wrong reference to the power under which an order is made does not per se vitiate the order if there is some other power under which the order could lawfully be made. The validity of the impugned order has to be tested by reference to the question whether the ITO had any power at all to make an order of this nature. If the power is otherwise established, the fact that the source of power has been incorrectly described would not make the order invalid.
VR.C.RM. Adaikkappa Chettiar Vs CIT (Mad) 78 ITR 285
R.P. Kandaswami & others Vs CIT (Mad) 49 ITR 344
CIT Vs Hargopal Balan & Sons (P &H) 82 ITR 243
L. Hazir Mal Kuthiala Vs ITO & Anr. (SC) 41 ITR 12
CIT Vs Motor Industries Co. (Kar) 229 ITR 126
K.P. Paulose & Co. Vs CIT (Ker) 230 ITR 798


Non-mention of Section under which statement of assessee is recorded will not invalidate statement recorded during course of proceedings u/s.132A.
ACIT Vs M.V. Nagaraja (ITAT, Bang) 70 ITD 318


Failure to mention specific provision under which interest is charged does not make the order bad.
CIT Vs Quality (Pat) 224 ITR 77


Assessment completed without following prescribed procedure – Non-compliance is only a procedural irregularity and will not render the assessment ab initio void – Direction to ITO to redo assessment after following prescribed procedure is valid
G.R. Steel and Alloys P. Ltd,. Vs CIT (Kar) 152 ITR 220
Saraljit Singh Vs CIT (Del) 234 ITR 641
V. Raju Vs CIT (Mad) 147 ITR 212
M.S. Kimtee Vs CIT (MP) 151 ITR 73


Assessee participating in reassessment proceedings – Failure to consider objection to 148 notice and failure to issue notice under section 143(2) – Reassessment order not void but irregular – Matter remitted to assessing Officer
Areva T & D India Ltd. Vs ACIT (Mad) 294 ITR 233


Penalty proceedings validly initiated – No opportunity of being heard given – Order set-aside – Continuation of proceedings from stage of notice – valid
Guduthur Bros Vs ITO (SC) 40 ITR 298
Thakur V. Hari Prasad Vs CIT (AP) 167 ITR 603
Addl. CIT Vs Boina Surana (AP) 124 ITR 328


Where an invalid assessment is annulled, it should be remanded to the ITO so that the assessee is not set at large without payment of tax
CIT Vs Anaimugan Transports (P) Ltd. (Mad) 215 ITR 553


Death of assessee in course of assessment procedure – Legal representative impleaded and heard – Assessment order mentioning name of deceased assessee instead of legal heir – Only a clerical error – Assessment is valid
Swaran Kanta Vs CIT (P & H) 176 ITR 291


Assessment order passed without giving notice to assessee – Assessment only legally vitiated but not warranting annulment.
C.G.G. Panicker Vs CIT (Ker) 237 ITR 443
Notice to only one legal representative of deceased – No objection taken by him and other legal representatives against non-impleadment of other heirs – assessment so made is valid.
ITO Vs Shahid Atiq, L/H of Late Atiquer Rehman (ITAT, Del) 89 ITD 489
CIT Vs Chandra Mohan Verma (All) 244 ITR 430
CIT Vs Pushpa Devi (Raj) 250 ITR 495
A.K.M. Govindaswamy Chettiar & Ors. Vs ITO ( Mad ) 244 ITR 559


Assessment order against deceased passed after his death – His son, with an advocate appeared in the proceedings – Assessment set-aside to ITO for impleading the legal heirs
CIT Vs Roshan Lal & Ors. (Del) 134 ITR 145


Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) quashed by CIT(A) as ITO had not obtained approval of IAC – ITAT directed ITO to pass an order afresh in accordance with law – held ITAT was justified.
Prabhudayal Amichand Vs CIT ( M P ) 180 ITR 84
CIT Vs Vijay Dal Mills (MP) 230 ITR 301
Gayathri Textiles Vs CIT (Kar) 243 ITR 674
Sardar Harinder Singh Vs ITO & Ors. (All) 219 ITR 257
CIT Vs Damodardas Murarilal (AP) 222 ITR 401


Act does not contemplate a hearing being given to the assessee by IAC before approving the penalty.
Lachmandas Mahar Chand Vs ITAT (Lahore) 12 ITR 432.


Office note is part of assessment order
Bimla Gulati Vs Appellate Asst. Commissioner (MP) 165 ITR 296


Computation of Total income made in assessment order and tax computed only on ITNS 50 – valid.
CIT Vs Hotel Highland Park (J&K) 246 ITR 130


Determination of tax not incorporated in assessment order but on a separate sheet of paper accompanying it – forms part of assessment order
Karuna Rani Jain & Ors. Vs CIT (P&H) 178 ITR 321
Kalyankumar Ray Vs CIT (SC) 191 ITR 634
Shashi Mangla Vs ACIT (ITAT, Del ) 60 TTJ 362


Notice issued u/s.148 vague as 'status' not mentioned therein – Assessee consciously and intentionally waived his right to object to defect in notice – Defect stood caused by sec.292 B – notice valid
CIT Vs Rajbir Singh (P & H) 233 ITR 126


Mere mistake in language used in penalty notice and non-striking of the inapplicable portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice.
CIT Vs Kausalya and others (Bom) 216 ITR 660
H.P. State Forest Corpn. Ltd. Vs CIT & Ors. (HP) 267 ITR 285
CIT Vs Maharaj Kishan (Del) 246 ITR 327


Penalty notice served along with an enclosure – Enclosure signed by ITO but notice not signed – Penalty not vitiated – There is nothing to indicate that the assessee was prejudiced by the defective notice served on him.
Kashmir Vastralaya Vs CIT (Pat) 112 ITR 630


Failure to serve Demand Notice – Recovery proceedings – not valid
Mohan Wahi Vs CIT & Ors. (SC) 248 ITR 799
Original assessment allowing development rebate – AAC set-aside whole assessment order – During fresh assessment proceedings, information that machinery was sold within 10 years – Development rebate can be rejected straight away – No need to allow it first and cancel u/s.35(11).
Indian Motors Transport P. Ltd Vs CIT & Ors. (SC) 156 ITR 489


Failure to quantify amount of penalty in the order – will not invalidate order
Assam Frontier Veneer & Saw Mills Vs CIT (Gau) 104 ITR 479
CIT Vs Jayantilal Meghani (Cal) 244 ITR 468


Office copy of notice available in assessment records – show notice validly issued by Assessing Officer – No evidence for proper service of such notice – Illegality occurred at this stage – Assessing Officer can proceed further from this stage
Raju Saigal Vs ITO (ITAT, Del) 106 Taxman (Mag) 12.


Death of assessee – Notice issued in the name of a person who was dead – widow of such person participating in re-assessment proceedings. Defect in notice stood automatically cured.
Kausalyabai Vs CIT (MP) 238 ITR 1008


Non-service of assessment order before serving of demand notice would not invalidate assessment order.
Surya Proteins Ltd. Vs ACIT ( ITAT, Indore ) 56 ITD 367


After abolition of Sec. 144B, Assessing Officer passed order after getting approval of Deputy Commissioner – Only a procedural lapse - Does not make assessment order invalid.
Amulakhbhai R.Patel Vs ACIT (ITAT, Ahd) 68 ITD 434


Penalty proceedings conducted by IAC – IAC directed ITO to levy penalty and to issue Demand Notice - Penalty valid
A.M. Shah & Co. Vs CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415


Omissions of Assessing Officer to confront assessee with materials collected by him – Irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction and not lack of jurisdiction – Remand to Assessing Officer
CIT Vs Bharatkumar Modi (Bom) 246 ITR 693


Calling for information u/s.133(6) without approval of CIT – Procedural lapse – curable defect – Still material obtained can be used.
Gyarsri Lal Gupta & Sons Vs ITO (ITAT, JP) 94 ITD 329.


Expl. 3 to sec. 153 – Direction by CIT(A) to initiate re-assessment proceedings against third person – Such person was aware of proceedings and given opportunity of being heard – Formal notice not necessary – Proceedings valid
Atul Traders Vs ITO ( All ) 282 ITR 536


Assessment order in the name of non-existent entity was passed on account of ignorance of fact of amalgamation. Irregularity only – Remit to Assessing Officer to issue notice in the name of successor company
Century Enka Ltd. Vs DCIT ( Mum ) 101 ITD 489
144 Asst – Registration cancelled without affording opportunity – Not justified - Matter restored to Assessing Officer for considering afresh.
Indotia Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT, Jp) 61 TTJ 398

No comments:

Post a Comment