Manish Kumar kaneriya vs. ACIT

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Judgment date: Pending full-judgment reconciliation · Court / Tribunal to be verified

TribunalQuashed / set asideHOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY

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; official primary replacement pending. Open packaged judgment PDF. Included in the complete repository but held outside the sitemap until official-primary and/or subsequent-history closure is recorded.

Case in 2 minutes

Section 153C/144 proceedings sent to obsolete email: lack of hearing and requirement of de novo adjudication.

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

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalCourt / Tribunal to be verified

Case numberPending full-judgment reconciliation

Decision datePending full-judgment reconciliation

Assessment yearPending full-judgment reconciliation

CoramHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

OutcomeQuashed / set aside

Sections / provisions: 153C/144; 153C

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

Section 153C/144 proceedings sent to obsolete email: lack of hearing and requirement of de novo adjudication.
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

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7614 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7655 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7624 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7629 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7623 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7627 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7626 of 2022 ========================================================== MANISHKUMAR TULSIDAS KANERIYA Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1, RAJKOT ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan R. Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Varun K.

2. What is prayed in the respective petitions is to set aside assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also under challenge are the orders dated 06.01.2022 as well as dated 09.02.2022 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereby the penalty came to be imposed on the petitioners.

3. As stated, while the petitioner is common in all the petitions, the impugned orders pertain to different assessment years, the details of which are given in the tabular form,

3.1 Noticing the basic facts from the pleadings of Special Civil Application No. 7614 of 2022 as representative facts, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been regularly

Appellant / assessee submissions

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan R. Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Varun K.

4. The main plank of submission of learned advocate for the petitioner has been that the assessment

orders under section 153C read with section 144 of the Act in respect of different assessment years as above came to be passed straightway without serving any notice to the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner had no opportunity to meet with the case of the department. There was open breach of natural justice, it was urged.

4.1 Learned advocate for the respondent was at his receiving end when confronted with the aspect that the assessment orders against the petitioner came to be passed without extending opportunity to the petitioner.

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

6. When the assessment under section 153 read with section 144 of the Act have been done by the assessing officer without giving the petitioner assessee an opportunity of being heard in terms of and within the meaning of section 144 of the Act, the orders are liable to be set aside on the said ground of not giving of opportunity and resultant breach of principles of natural justice. The proper course would be to remit back the cases to the assessing officer to be proceeded with from the stage of notice which shall be served upon the petitioner in each case.

6.1 In the aforesaid view, all the petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 29.09.2021 passed in respect of assessment year 2013-14 in case of first captioned petition and in respect of other such

years in the other respective petitions under section 153C read with section 144 of the Act are set aside. Also set aside are the orders dated 06.01.2022 and 09.02.2022 in each cases imposing penalty.

7. All the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The packaged judgment addresses Section 153C/144 proceedings sent to obsolete email: lack of hearing and requirement of de novo adjudication. 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 section 153c/144 proceedings sent to obsolete email: lack of hearing and requirement of de novo adjudication. 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	Tribunal
Source integrity	Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending
Repository release	HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
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 Manish Kumar kaneriya vs. ACIT?

Section 153C/144 proceedings sent to obsolete email: lack of hearing and requirement of de novo adjudication.

Which facts matter most?

What did the Court / Tribunal to be verified decide?

7. All the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?

The packaged judgment addresses Section 153C/144 proceedings sent to obsolete email: lack of hearing and requirement of de novo adjudication. 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?

153C/144, 153C

When is the case most useful?

When the user's facts raise the same issue - Section 153C/144 proceedings sent to obsolete email: lack of hearing and requirement of de novo adjudication - 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.

Section / provision impact

153C/144 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
153C - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

Bridge India Fund, New Delhi v. ACIT - ITAT Mumbai - I Bench
SECUNDRABAD CLUB VS. C.I.T.-V - Supreme Court of India
PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF - Court / Tribunal to be verified

Different outcome / possible distinction

ACIT v. Ashok W. Wesavkar - Operative order controls
ACIT CIR 6(1) VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED - Remanded / restored

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY

Reliance reminder