“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

M/S. P Praful & Co Agency(India)Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 528/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Final Appeal.

Section 127Section 143(3)

before final appeal. 3. Today is the 33rd hearing of the above appeal, None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notices which were also returned unserved as party ‘Left’ the above address. 4. Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue placed on record order passed

Fiserv India P.Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and as a result, the appeal before Learned

ITA 910/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhogendra Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92C

matter for decision of the appeal afresh by Learned CIT(A), after providing another opportunity to the appellant. 11. As noticed above, upon service of notices to the appellant issued twice, appellant sought adjournment, and Learned CIT(A) I.T.A. No.910/Del/2022 5 allowed the request. 12. From the impugned order

Vinod, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Ghaziabd

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

ITA 8531/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer in: a. initiating proceedings under Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) without there being any service of notice and also reasons to belief of escapement of income; b. passing order u/s 147/144 of the Act determining taxable income in a sum of Rs.91

Manoj Bhalothia, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3843/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vaid Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr

Section 124Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Laxman Das Khandelwal in Civil Appeal no 6261 dated 13.08.2019 for the proposition that where the assessee has participated in the proceedings, service of notice would be considered as valid and proper. 10. In its rejoinder, the ld AR of the assessee stated that the issue is not challenge ... Laxman Das Khandelwal is distinguishable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the effect of provision of section 292BB on the improper service of notice. The question in the instant case is assumption of valid jurisdiction in absence of any order u/s 127. 15. In the light

Shreyas Wines, Aurnagabad - Maharashtra vs. AO, Aurangabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly ALLOWED

ITA 891/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Shivam Jaiswal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)

Maharashtra State Excise Rules & Maharashtra State Country Liquor Rules was required to maintain certain stock/inventory registers. In the course of assessment by service of notices dt. 12/06/2018 16/07/2018 & 11/10/2018 u/s 142(1) of the Act the appellant assessee was called upon to produce details of stock, purchases, sales, debtors & creditors

Shreyas Wines, Aurangabad vs. Assessing Officer, Aurangabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly ALLOWED

ITA 890/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Shivam Jaiswal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)

M/S Indovision Commodities Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 500/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.500/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Indovision Commodities Ltd. .....……………………....………....Appellant Block-B, Suit No.1A Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcm8943Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 06, 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 23.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘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 Notice U/S 148 & The Reassessment Completed By Ito Wd 6(4) Was Without Jurisdiction, Invalid & Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 On Vague Reasons Without Any Tangible Material Or Independent Application Of Mind Simply On Borrowed Satisfaction, Suspicion & Surmises Were Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Abhishek Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1232/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1232/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2013-14) Abhishek Gupta, R-14/15 Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan: Asfpg-1314-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circ Le -2(1)(1), Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Goving Agarwal, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 20.11.2023, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Goving Agarwal, Appearing On Behalf Of Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A) Without Affording Fair Opportunity Of Hearing, In An Ex-Parte Proceedings Has Dismissed

For Appellant: Shri Goving Agarwal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

notices reveal that the notices were sent on email id other than the email mentioned by the assessee in Form No. 35 for service of notices. Thus, the notices sent by the CIT(A) were never served on the assessee. 5. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case

Anchor Marine Tech Services Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Int. Taxation Circle-1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 951/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44B

pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Though the assessee has raised as many as 14 grounds of appeal, but the challenge to the service of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] for assumption of jurisdiction to frame order ... initio as the notice u/s 148 was never served to the assessee. She submitted the sequence of events on the issue of service of notice u/s 148 as below: (a) Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019 Notice addressed to 20 Maxwell Road, 8-10, Maxwell House, Singapore

Emerging Medicine Forum, Chandigarh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 90/CHANDI/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 282(1)

hearing was ever received. Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice. The matter now stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Munjal BSU Centre of Innovation

Bhupinder Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 88/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 88/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhupinder Singh Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ward 6(1), H.No. 1407/21, Chandigarh 3Rd Floor, Phase Xi, Mohali 160055 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bvrps9583F अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Amitoz Singh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 69A

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

Lala Babu Ram Aggarwal Charitable Trust, Rajpura vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

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

ITA 800/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 800/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Lala Babu Ram Aggarwal Vs. The Cit (Exemptions), बनाम Chandigarh Charitable Trust, J-2/14, Gobind Colony, Rajpura, Punjab – 140401 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatl0495N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 80G

R L Education Sanstha, Paithan vs. CIT(Exemption) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal by appellant trust stands partly allowed

ITA 806/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

appeal before us in the present appeal. 4. When the matter was called on, none represented the case of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 5. The ld. Sr. DR supporting the order

Satyaprakash Chouhan, Mhow vs. ITO 5 (3), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 169/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Satyaprakash Ito-5(3), Chouhan, Indore 14, Geeta Bhawan Chouhraha Chakkiwale बनाम/ Mahadeo Complex, Vs. Mhow

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 69A

assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice. The order so passed without providing proper opportunity of being heard is illegal and wrong. Page 1 of 10 Shri Satyaprakash Chouhan

Sri. Aravindan Vedhavaththiyar Singarachari, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 666/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

Sri. Aravindan Vedhavaththiyar Singarachari, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 665/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 143(1)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1061/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

said returns were then subjected for scrutiny by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 4.2 In the event of failure on the part of assessee to comply with the subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and tender evidential material in support of return