Gourishankar Girdharilal Lohiya HUF v. ACIT

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Judgment date: 2022-05-26 · ITAT Pune

ITATAllowedPUBLISH_READY

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

Source status: Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; the exact issuing-court primary record remains pending. Open packaged judgment PDF. This indexed page retains explicit official-source and later-history disclosures for reliance checks.

Case in 2 minutes

Assessing Officer’s issued notice under section 143(2) dated 01.09.2010 to Shri Lohia Gourishankar G having PAN No.AAKPL3064D . and not to the assessee (HUF) having PAN No.AAAHL3831L but to Shri Lohia which makes it clear cut instance of non-issuance of a valid section 143(2) notice held to be mandatory condition in the foregoing landmark decision. Accordingly Hon ITAT Pune quashed the impugned assessment for this precise legal reason alone.

Result: Allowed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalITAT Pune

Case numberITA No.406/PUN/2020

Decision date2022-05-26

Assessment yearAY 2009-10

CoramSHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

OutcomeAllowed

Sections / provisions: 143(3)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

Assessing Officer’s issued notice under section 143(2) dated 01.09.2010 to Shri Lohia Gourishankar G having PAN No.AAKPL3064D . and not to the assessee (HUF) having PAN No.AAAHL3831L but to Shri Lohia which makes it clear cut instance of non-issuance of a valid section 143(2) notice held to be mandatory condition in the foregoing landmark decision. Accordingly Hon ITAT Pune quashed the impugned assessment for this precise legal reason alone.
What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

JUDGMENT-GROUNDED CASE RECORD

Material facts and procedural background

Gourishankar Girdharilal Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad. Lohiya (HUF), Abdulla Complex, Subhas Road, Jalna-431203. PAN : AAAHL3831L Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Harshit Kabra Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises

2. I straightway advert to the assessee’s latter substantive ground

3. Mr. Desai invited my attention to page 59 in assessee’s paper

Appellant / assessee submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the appellant's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.

Operative decision and relief

Delay of 35 days in filing is condoned since falling in Covid- 19 outbreak period. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 26th day of May, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 26th May, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File.

Official source and later-history control

Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING

Later-history status: RECTIFICATION_HIGH_COURT_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING

ITAT rectification, jurisdictional High Court appeal and Supreme Court SLP history remain to be closed.

Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The packaged judgment addresses Assessing Officer’s issued notice under section 143(2) dated 01.09.2010 to Shri Lohia Gourishankar G having PAN No.AAKPL3064D . and not to the assessee (HUF) having PAN No.AAAHL3831L but to Shri Lohia which makes it clear cut instance of non-issuance of a valid section 143(2) notice held to be mandatory condition in the foregoing landmark decision. Accordingly Hon ITAT Pune quashed the impugned assessment for this precise legal reason alone. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with assessing officer’s issued notice under section 143(2) dated 01.09.2010 to shri lohia gourishankar g having pan no.aakpl3064d . and not to the assessee (huf) having pan no.aaahl3831l but to shri lohia which makes it clear cut instance of non-issuance of a valid section 143(2) notice held to be mandatory condition in the foregoing landmark decision. accordingly hon itat pune quashed the impugned assessment for this precise legal reason alone. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority level	ITAT
Source integrity	Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending
Repository release	PUBLISH_READY
Reliance rule	Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote.

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

The same primary issue is raised.
The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
The material documentary record is substantially similar.

Weaker / distinguishable when

A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in Gourishankar Girdharilal Lohiya HUF v. ACIT?

Which facts matter most?

Gourishankar Girdharilal Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad. Lohiya (HUF), Abdulla Complex, Subhas Road, Jalna-431203. PAN : AAAHL3831L Appellant Respondent

What did the ITAT Pune decide?

What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?

The packaged judgment addresses Assessing Officer’s issued notice under section 143(2) dated 01.09.2010 to Shri Lohia Gourishankar G having PAN No.AAKPL3064D . and not to the assessee (HUF) having PAN No.AAAHL3831L but to Shri Lohia which makes it clear cut instance of non-issuance of a valid section 143(2) notice held to be mandatory condition in the foregoing landmark decision. Accordingly Hon ITAT Pune quashed the impugned assessment for this precise legal reason alone. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Which provisions should be checked?

143(3)

When is the case most useful?

When the user's facts raise the same issue - Assessing Officer’s issued notice under section 143(2) dated 01.09.2010 to Shri Lohia Gourishankar G having PAN No.AAKPL3064D . and not to the assessee (HUF) having PAN No.AAAHL3831L but to Shri Lohia which makes it clear cut instance of non-issuance of a valid section 143(2) notice held to be mandatory condition in the foregoing landmark decision. Accordingly Hon ITAT Pune quashed the impugned assessment for this precise legal reason alone - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.

What could distinguish the case?

Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.

Can it be cited without another current-law check?

No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.