← All Phrases

“service of notice”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 1483,297 judgments

The decision most relied on for service of notice is Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai (84 Taxmann.com 51), cited in 263 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on service of notice

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal
417 ITR 325 · 2019 · Supreme Court
225
citing judgments

Issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement for completing an assessment when a return is filed, including reassessment under Section 147/143(3). The complete absence of this notice renders the assessment invalid and is not curable by Section 292BB.

1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co.
53 ITR 231 · 1964 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

Income-tax assessment proceedings are administrative in nature, not civil disputes or judicial proceedings between contesting parties. Income-tax authorities act as administrative bodies to estimate income and assess tax, and the proper service of notice within the limitation period is foundational for reassessment jurisdiction.

Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)
463 ITR 560 · 2024 · High Court
75
citing judgments

Service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service under section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Consequently, matters where notice was deemed invalidly served via ITBA portal are remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo disposal to uphold principles of natural justice.

Narayana Chetty v. ITO
35 ITR 388 · 1959 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

A valid and properly served notice under section 148 (or old section 34) is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite for initiating reassessment proceedings; its absence or invalidity renders the entire proceedings illegal and void ab initio. The validity of service hinges on adherence to prescribed modes, not merely the recipient's acknowledgment.

Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
337 ITR 389 · 2011 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The present case is cited as authority for the proposition that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are valid even if they do not refer to the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings, provided the reasons are communicated to the assessee. Furthermore, the issue of jurisdiction under Section 124(3) and the validity of notice under Section 143(2) are also key areas addressed.

CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co.
370 ITR 87 · 2015 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory, and its non-service or invalidity is not a curable procedural irregularity, rendering subsequent assessment proceedings void. Objections regarding non-service of notice, being a jurisdictional issue, can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

Banarsi Debi v. ITO
53 ITR 100 · 1964 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

For income-tax notices, particularly under Section 34(1) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Sections 147/148 of the 1961 Act), there is no real distinction between the 'issue' and 'service' of a notice. The word 'issued' must be given a wider meaning, effectively encompassing 'served'.

Judgments citing service of notice

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and consequently the appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice President Dr. B. R

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The learned Sr. DR submits that

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The learned Sr. DR submits that

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The learned Sr. DR submits that

Valsan Chiyyabath, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The learned Sr. DR submits that

Elizabeth Jose, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 522/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Elizbeth Jose .......... Appellant Choice House, P.V. Sreedharan Road Kumbalam, Ernakulam 682506 [Pan: Acfpj2569J] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 03.08 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 14,71,400/- & Unabsorbed Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 35,89,251/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Accepting

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. However, vide ground of appeals the appellant submits

Rakesh H Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1733/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 250

arising out of the respective Assessment orders. 2. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. On the previous two occasions also, assessee remained unrepresented. We therefore proceed to dispose of these appeals with the able assistance from

Rakesh H Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1732/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 250

arising out of the respective Assessment orders. 2. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. On the previous two occasions also, assessee remained unrepresented. We therefore proceed to dispose of these appeals with the able assistance from

Rakesh H Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1731/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 250

arising out of the respective Assessment orders. 2. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. On the previous two occasions also, assessee remained unrepresented. We therefore proceed to dispose of these appeals with the able assistance from

Sadhika Ganni, Rajahmundry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Rajahmundry

ITA 205/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

raised: i. The order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act lacks legal validity due to the absence of issuance and service of notice by the jurisdictional AO i.e. DCIT, Circle 2, Rajahmundry u/s 143(2) of the IT Act (in short "AO"). Without compliance of such mandatory requirement

Anilkumar Ramanbhai Amin, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2417/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

under: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without effecting proper and valid service of notice upon the appellant. The appellate proceedings were concluded without ensuring that notice was actually delivered to the appellant at his correct communication address ... thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3. The impugned appellate order is invalid and bad in law, having been passed without proper service of notice and without fulfilling the jurisdictional requirement of valid communication. In the absence of legally sustainable service, the entire ex-parte order stands vitiated

Trambak Raghunath Kale, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Amravati

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 30/NAG/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Nag/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Trambak Raghunath Kale, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Congress Nagar, Camp Road, Ward-3, Amravati Amravati-444602, Maharashtra Pan: Bbbpk6461L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available material on record exparte qua assessee

ITO, Ahmedabad vs. Udayan Mandavia, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 154/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Palak Pavagadhi, AR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 69A

from 30% to 60% was beyond the scope of section 154. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note of the submissions regarding non-service of notice and violation of principles of natural justice. In view of these findings, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the rectification order passed under section

Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited, Village Valshind, Bhiwandi vs. Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan, Thane

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

ITA 5011/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 234FSection 250

deeming fiction under section 292BB, according to the learned Authorised 9 Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited Representative, applies only to defects in service of notice and not to cases where the statutory requirement of valid issuance by the competent authority is not satisfied. It was therefore contended that ... competent Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the argument of complete absence of notice does not survive. The provisions of section 292BB, which cure defects in service of notice, do not even arise for consideration in a situation where the notice itself stands issued. 26. Evaluating the issue across different assessment regimes, whether

Vidya Shanker Jaiswal, Sarguja vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 142/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

already been made explicit in the aforementioned decisions of the Allahabad High Court. That provision would apply in so far as failure of 'service‟ of notice was concerned and not with regard to failure to „issue‟ notice. In other words, the failure of the Assessing Officer, in reassessment proceedings ... available on record. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the department has failed to produce any proof as regards the service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. It is settled legal position that the issuance of notice u/s.143(2) is sine-qua-non for framing

Vidya Shanker Jaiswal, Sarguja vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

already been made explicit in the aforementioned decisions of the Allahabad High Court. That provision would apply in so far as failure of 'service‟ of notice was concerned and not with regard to failure to „issue‟ notice. In other words, the failure of the Assessing Officer, in reassessment proceedings ... available on record. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the department has failed to produce any proof as regards the service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. It is settled legal position that the issuance of notice u/s.143(2) is sine-qua-non for framing

Vijay Kothari, Indore vs. DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250

produced the written-submission filed by assessee before him, the bench directed Ld. AR to file a detailed explanation qua the service of notices of hearing and impugned order by CIT(A). Pursuant to direction of bench, the Ld. AR filed following Chart giving complete details of the notices

Prajyoth Kumar Adi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2077/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties. In our view, as the CIT(A) office had failed to carry out a valid service of notice intimating the fixation of the appeal by not forwarding/dropping the same in the email account provided by the assessee in Form-35 ie., padi.kumar@gmail.com, therefore

Narayan Barter Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between 'issue of notice' and 'service of notice' under the 1961 Act. Section 149 prescribes the period of limitation. It categorically prescribes that no notice under section 148 shall be issued after ... prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides for ITA No(s). 2572/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2011-12 Narayan Barter Private Limited. service of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assessment. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitations, jurisdiction becomes vested

Mahesh Prakash Bende, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

were issued calling for details. The case was transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Despite service of notices, including through the Verification Unit, no response was received from the assessee. Thereafter, a final opportunity was granted by issuing notice under section 144, which