← 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

The Punjab Livestock Development Board, Mohali vs. Dict(Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, for all the assessment years, i

ITA 512/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 510 To 512/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 ( Physical Hering ) The Punjab Livestock Vs. The Dcit Exemptions, बनाम Circle-1, Development Board, Chandigarh Livestock Bhawan, Sector 68, Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt8377Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sachit Singla Adv. & Shri T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr & S.A. Nos. 14 & 15/Chd/2024 ( In Ita Nos. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 510 & 511/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-2013 ( Hybrid Hearing ) Vs. The Dcit Exemptions, The Punjab Livestock बनाम Circle-1, Development Board, Chandigarh Livestock Bhawan, Sector 68, Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt8377Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sachit Singla Adv. & Shri T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Singla AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 148

registered e- mail of the Assessee and further there is no such evidence available on record with the Department to prove the service of notice on the Assessee. 510 to 512-Chd-2024 & S.A. Nos. 14 & 15-Chd-2024 – The Punjab Livestock Development Board, Mohali 4 5. The ld. Counsel ... case of ‘Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs CIT(E) Chandigarh’, CWP No. 21028/2023 dated 4.3.2024 and requested that as the service of notice was solely on portal which could not be seen by the Assessee, therefore, as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court’s decision

The Punjab Livestock Development Board, Mohali vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, for all the assessment years, i

ITA 511/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 510 To 512/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 ( Physical Hering ) The Punjab Livestock Vs. The Dcit Exemptions, बनाम Circle-1, Development Board, Chandigarh Livestock Bhawan, Sector 68, Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt8377Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sachit Singla Adv. & Shri T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr & S.A. Nos. 14 & 15/Chd/2024 ( In Ita Nos. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 510 & 511/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-2013 ( Hybrid Hearing ) Vs. The Dcit Exemptions, The Punjab Livestock बनाम Circle-1, Development Board, Chandigarh Livestock Bhawan, Sector 68, Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt8377Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sachit Singla Adv. & Shri T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Singla AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 148

registered e- mail of the Assessee and further there is no such evidence available on record with the Department to prove the service of notice on the Assessee. 510 to 512-Chd-2024 & S.A. Nos. 14 & 15-Chd-2024 – The Punjab Livestock Development Board, Mohali 4 5. The ld. Counsel ... case of ‘Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs CIT(E) Chandigarh’, CWP No. 21028/2023 dated 4.3.2024 and requested that as the service of notice was solely on portal which could not be seen by the Assessee, therefore, as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court’s decision

The Punjab Livestock Development Board, Mohali vs. DCIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, for all the assessment years, i

ITA 510/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 510 To 512/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 ( Physical Hering ) The Punjab Livestock Vs. The Dcit Exemptions, बनाम Circle-1, Development Board, Chandigarh Livestock Bhawan, Sector 68, Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt8377Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sachit Singla Adv. & Shri T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr & S.A. Nos. 14 & 15/Chd/2024 ( In Ita Nos. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 510 & 511/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-2013 ( Hybrid Hearing ) Vs. The Dcit Exemptions, The Punjab Livestock बनाम Circle-1, Development Board, Chandigarh Livestock Bhawan, Sector 68, Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt8377Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sachit Singla Adv. & Shri T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Singla AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 148

registered e- mail of the Assessee and further there is no such evidence available on record with the Department to prove the service of notice on the Assessee. 510 to 512-Chd-2024 & S.A. Nos. 14 & 15-Chd-2024 – The Punjab Livestock Development Board, Mohali 4 5. The ld. Counsel ... case of ‘Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs CIT(E) Chandigarh’, CWP No. 21028/2023 dated 4.3.2024 and requested that as the service of notice was solely on portal which could not be seen by the Assessee, therefore, as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court’s decision

Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Jalna vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jalna

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

ITA 919/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.919/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Vs Income Tax Department, Near Market Yard, Main Road, National Faceless Assessment Tal.-Mantha, Dist.-Jalna-431504 Centre Pan : Agrpm1697A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 17.08.2023 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) (Nfac) Erred In Passing Appeal Order Under Sec. 250 Of The Act, Dt. 17-08-2023 Which Order Is Perverse Not Only To The Facts Of The Case & Also The Provisions Of The Act, 1961. Girish Ratanlal Murkya

Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

compliance. 4. The ld. AR invited our attention to Form No. 35 and submitted that the assessee “opted out” of e-service of notices. However, it is claimed by the Revenue that the notices were e-served. No notice was received by the assessee issued