RAJ SINGH,GB NAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 3(1), NOIDA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no evidence of proper service of the Section 148 notice in the revenue's records. Consequently, the Assessment Order was deemed liable to be quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged assessment orders passed after issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the notice was not properly served, rendering the assessment invalid.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order is valid when there is no proof of service of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida dated 28.03.2018 and 31.12.2018.
Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued on 30.03.2016 as per the Assessment Order. At the outset, the assessee argued that the notice has not been served and hence the Assessment Order is invalid in the eyes of law.
We have gone through the original record presented before by the revenue authorities and find that there was no evidence of service of notice in the original records produced before us. Raj Singh 4. The ld. DR could not controvert the fact nor gave any evidence to prove the service of notice.
Hence, we hereby hold that the Assessment Order completed without service of the proper notice u/s 148 is liable to be quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. : Asstt. Year 2009-10
Since, the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on quantum proceedings, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be quashed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12/08/2022.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026