← 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

Latabai Vijay Jadhav, Shahada vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1522/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1522/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. I heard

Maharashtra Swayamrojgar Prashikshan Mandal, Nashik, Maharashtra vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant trust stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1512/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1512/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant trust despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. I heard

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 9. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 10. I heard ... before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 9. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 10. I heard

Shailaja Kunchala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 697/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailaja Kunchala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cfkpk9703B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav – Cit-Dr (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 282Section 37(1)

prosecution that too without properly considering and deciding merits of the case. 3. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)-NFAC ought to have appreciated that service of notice through electronic mode, being a new phenomenon, during the transitory phase the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) should have issued a notice through the other modes

Skyway Rmc Plants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Circle DCIT, -TDS-WD 2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3896/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyal1. Ita No. 3896/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2010-11) 2. Ita No. 3897/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2011-12) 3. Ita No. 3898/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) 4. Ita No. 3899/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2013-14) 5. Ita No. 3900/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2014-15) 6. Ita No. 3923/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2015-16) 7. Ita No. 3901/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2016-17) 8. Ita No. 3902/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2017-18) 9. Ita No. 3903/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2018-19) 10. Ita No. 3904/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2020-21) 11. Ita No. 3905/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2021-22) 12. Ita No. 3906/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2022-23)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Suresh, Ld. DR
Section 201Section 250

interest on late payment of TDS amount. It is observed vide para 5 of the Ld. CIT (A)’s order that date of service of notice of demand was 10.02.2020, but appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) was filed on 17.08.2020 which is belated in category and the same

Anoop Gopikishna Jaju, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 1557/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1557/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. I heard

Rahul Nandkumar Shelar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-14(5), Pune

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

ITA 1537/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1537/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. I heard

Sourabh Vijay Gadale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 1503/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1503/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. I heard

Fakroddin Dawal Patel, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Latur

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

ITA 1477/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1477/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 147

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. I heard

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1008/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

153A was served on the assessee on 09/03/2017 requiring the assessee to furnish the return of income within 15 days of the service of notice, which means by 24/03/2017, on which date the return stood filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred

Veeranna Murthy Raghavendra Deekshith, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1072/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chinmay Anand Jain, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271A

plain reading of the above section, we find that assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection with regard to service of notice in an improper manner if he has appeared in any proceedings or co-operated in any enquiry relating to an assessment. In the present case, we find

Gurbachan Kaur, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 388/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253

record. We have perused statement of fact in Form No. 35 wherein it is averred that assessee was not in India during service of notice by Department. Assessee was out of India from 19/03/2019 to 20/12/2019 after she arrived and came to know of Income Tax Notice issued

Manohars Catering, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1393/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Raghvendra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 37Section 40

notice was not sent to the wrong address and was not sent to the address stated in Form No. 35 for service of notice of A.Y. 2008-09 Manohars Catering hearing. The assessee, admittedly received the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.01.2018. The assessee did not filed ... hearing shall be issued only to the address mentioned in the PAN and not to the address mentioned in Form No. 35 for service of notice , which observation of the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to provisions of Section 282 of the 1961 Act read with first proviso

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 932/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144

allowed vide order dated 11-01-2023 and now posted for hearing. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee in spite of service of notices. Today is the 17th time of hearing of this appeal (in M.A. Proceeding 23 times of hearing). So with the assistance

Rohit Baid, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 15/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

Section 120Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 292B

deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. It is, however, to be noted that ... must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in I.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself.” 10. Respectfully following the propositions

Ramesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 880/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 251Section 50C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Shivalik Constructions P. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO Ward - 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7801/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7801/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2009-10) M/S. Shivalik Constructions Pvt. Ltd., D-245, Nehru Colony, Haridwar Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aajcs-3277-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(2), C.R Building_Ito, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent I.P Estate, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To 'The Cit(A)') Dated 23/07/2019, For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Shri Ankit Gupta, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits, That This Is Second Round Of Litigation For Ay 2009-10 Before The Tribunal. In The First Round, The Tribunal In Ita No. 1026/Del/2013 Allowed Appeal Of The Assessee For Statistical

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 40

denovo adjudication, after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 5. The assessee upon service of notice by the CIT(A) shall respond to the same, without fail. 6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Harbans Singh Bagga, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1231/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harbans Singh Bagga.…....………………………… ........................……Appellant A-7 Rajasthali, No-3 Jamadar Khan Lane Near Copper House, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Afbpb0526J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.1,14,41,888/- Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee As Bogus. The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Aforesaid Additions Not Only On Merits But Also On The Ground That The Concerned Assessing Officer Did Not Have The Pecuniary Jurisdiction To Pass The Assessment Order In Question By Way Of Additional Legal Ground. Since The Additional Legal Ground Taken By The

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. It is, however, to be noted that ... notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself.” 10. Respectfully following the propositions

Manish Malik, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9177/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

attorney has also been placed on record by the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee. Therefore, it is not the case of non-service of notice of hearing. The assessee was well aware about the hearing of the appeal and has consciously chosen not to appear before the Tribunal. Under

Subba Raju Kondraju, Nellore vs. DCIT-1 Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

mail ID provided in Form 35. Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee, in Form 35 has categorically denied the service of notices / communications via e-mail, due to which the assessee remains unaware of the passing of order by the Ld CIT(A) and hence there