“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

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

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

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

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

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

Jayganga Exim India Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

declaring nil income. Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Despite service of notice under section 147 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income nor did it respond to the subsequent notices issued by the Assessing

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 564/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

declaring nil income. Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act). Despite service of notice under section 147 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income nor did it respond to the subsequent notices issued by the Assessing

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 563/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

declaring nil income. Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act"). Despite service of notice under section 147 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income nor did it respond to the subsequent notices issued by the Assessing

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 562/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

ITA 561/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Jayganga Exim India Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhopal

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bhavnagar vs. Rudra Global Infra Products Limited, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1163/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

noticed that out of more than 150 parties, only two parties Shri Naresh Ram and Ruby Kumar did not make any submission despite service of notice u/s 133(6). The AO on the basis of this and without conducting any further enquiry concluded that these transactions are not genuine ... compliances well in place. 6.11 It is noticed that merely because some parties have not responded to notices issued u/s 133(6) despite service of notice and that the parties who appeared before him did not submit ‘other details’ without specifying what details were called for and what further action

Cil Employees Co Op Credit Society Limited, Pune vs. Exemption, Ward-1(2), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1600/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1600/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cil Employees’ Co Op Credit V Exemption, Society Limited, S Ward-1(2), Pune. Cummins Inida Ltd., Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan:Aabac8908M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 29.02.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The I.T .Act, 1961 Dated 28.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submission of ld.Authorised Representative that Assessee could not file reply due to non-service of notice. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT

R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2275/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

taxmann.com 434 (SC) to contest that assessee did not raise objection in accordance with sec. 124(3) within 30 days of issuance of service of notice u/s. 143(2) and participated in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, he has no legal ground to challenge the assessment at this stage

M/S. Nanshi Export Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4099/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nanshi Export Private Limited Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1), 301, 3Rd Floor Stanford Plaza Opp. Mumbai Vs. Citi Mall Nr. Oberoi Spring New Link Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, Maharashtra 400020 Pan No. Aadcn 0694 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69C

appeal at the time or before the hearing of this appeal.” 2. At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, none appeared

Suresh Jat, Badnawar vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Dhar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 693/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194HSection 250Section 253Section 69A

have gone on e- mail/portal & one notice (supra) has gone by speed post. No valid explanation worth a credence has come forth about service of notice(s) on portal & by speed post. Merely averring that one Ashok suraj was counsel of the assessee & his two ID’s are on record

Neha Tamrakar, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 5 (1), Bhopal

In the result, the “Impugned Order” is set aside as & by

ITA 175/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshineha Tamrakar, Ito -5(1), बनाम/ 177 A Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Ajtpt6475G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 129Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 246Section 250

regarding no notice u/s 148 being issued within time, this office vide letter dated 01.09.2023 requested the AO to provide the proof of service of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO vide letter dated 21.09.2023 has stated that the notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1604/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Dy. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Circle-1, Ground Floor, Bhavnagar – 364 001 Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 147Section 234ASection 270ASection 37

proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), several notices were issued to the assessee affording opportunities to file written submissions and supporting evidence. However, despite service of notices on multiple occasions, the assessee did not file any submissions or evidences in support Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited vs. Dy.CIT

Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

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

ITA 2982/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2982/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80C

appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, considering the fact that assessee failed to make any compliance before ld.CIT(A) and with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative

Horizon Buildmart Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalhorizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, C-131, Ground Floor, Block-C, Central Circle-Ii, Sushant Shopping Arcade, Vs. Faridabad, Sushant Lok-1, Haryana-121001. Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aacch4582P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Assessee By Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.01.2025 In Appeal No.10581/Cit(A) Ggn-3/2018-19 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.54,833/-. The Ao Had Information That Assessee Received Loan Horizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Income Tax Officer, Hisar vs. Ajay Kumar, Hisar

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5861/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37Section 69C

fact that whether notices issued u/s 133(6) were ever delivered or not is also not documented by the AO. Without valid service of notices issued u/s 133(6) the validity of such notices is highly questionable and the same cannot relied upon. 1. That as held by various higher ... courts, non-service of Notices sent U/s 133(6) or no reply received for the notice or non-traceable dealer, does not proves that the transactions with the said dealers is non genuine. Reliance is placed on following: “1) Case Law 1 - CIT-I vs. Nagalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. — High

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hisar, Hisar vs. Ajay Kumar, Hisar

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5836/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37Section 69C

Neelam Gupta, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 312 To 314/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Neelam Gupta, The Ito, बनाम House No. 41, Ward 5(5), Sector 28-A, Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aatpg9445J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. For Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr, सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. for Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

notices issued to the Assessee remained uncompiled with and the Assessee had not filed any written submissions but no such evidence of service of notice to the Assessee, though claimed to be issued, was placed on record. In any case, Ld. CIT(A) is supposed to pass the orders

Neelam Gupta, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. for Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Neelam Gupta, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. for Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)