“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

Eden Education and Research Institute, Aurangabad vs. CIT, Examption, Pune

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

ITA 614/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.614/Pun/2024 Eden Education & Research Vs. The Cit (Exemption), Institute Aurangabad, Pune Rahim Nagar, Beed By Pass Road Bazar, Satara – 431 001 Aurangabad, Maharashtra Pan : Aaate7724P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282(1)

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing the ld. CIT-DR and perusing the material on record, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte ... evident that the hearing notices were sent through ITBA portal/email. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 387/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

thereby reducing MAT credit from Rs. 3.16 crore to Rs. 55.46 lacs. 7. Learned DR for the department has contended that despite service of notice, there was non appearance before the Assessing Officer and also before Learned CIT(A), and no interference is called for, and this appeal deserves ... mentioned here that in the course of arguments, ld. AR for the assessee has not disputed the factum of issuance and service of notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act on 02.04.2019. The only contention raised by the ld. AR for the assessee as regards

Ravinder Kumar, (Deceased)(Through L/H Madhu Bala), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 55(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3799/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaravinder Kumar (Deceased) Vs. Ito, Through Legal Heir Madhu Bala) Ward-55(4), Room No. 205, Shiv Ashry New Delhi Senior Citizen Home, 14, Sec- 09, Rohini (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqpk9651D

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

appeal. 3. On perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A), we convinced that there is a specific conclusion of service of notice u/s 143(2) within the time prescribed under the law and there is no justification on the part of the ld AO to restrict the addition

Amish Umesh Jani, Thane, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(5), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 864/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271

following details , have been issued and served on you. S.No. Details of notices Date of issue Date of Remarks issued Service 1. Notice u/s 148 of the 29.03.2017 30.03.2017 Non I.T. Act Compliance 2. Reminder Letter 29.05.2017 By speed post Non Compliance 3. Notice ... support from their sons/daughters in case of any health emergency, more-so when one of the husband or wife dies. So Far Service of notice , merely sending 12 I.T.A No. 864/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. Amish Umesh Jani L/H/ of Late Shrimati Smitaben Umesh Jani v. ITO notices

Manishkumar Dahyabhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 849/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

received the hearing notices issued by the CIT(A) as the assessee was not aware about the technicalities of e-mail service of notice. The CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order; therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand this matter Manishkumar dahyabhai Patel

M/S Vrishah Service Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 503/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.503/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Vrishah Services Pvt. Ltd……......……............…...……………....Appellant 9, Ezra Street, 2Nd Floor, Room No.47, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaccr3949Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, 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 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24, 2024

Section 250

appeal opening form 35. Hence, considering the fact that the assessee could not present its case before the CIT(A) for want of service of notice and further considering the principles of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) with

M/S. Littlestar Projects Private Limited., Uditnagar vs. ITO, Ward-10(3), Kolkata.

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1285/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1285/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Littlestar Projects Pvt. Ltd…....……............…...……………....Appellant Shop No.C-12, F/F, Seth Deokaran Dass Commercial Complex, Kachery Road, Unit No.36, Uditnagar, Rourkela Town, Sundergarh, Odisha- 769012. [Pan: Aabcl7062K] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(3), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, 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 : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24, 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 19.10.2023 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order Passed By The Cit(A). The Ld. Counsel Has Also Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order To Submit That The Same Is Also An Ex Parte Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Invited Our Attention To The Opening Lines Of The Assessment Order, Wherein, It Has Been Mentioned That The Notices Of

Section 144Section 250

change in address. However, considering the fact that the assessee could not present its case before the CIT(A) for want of service of notice and further considering the principles of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) with

Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 184/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148

filed before the Learned CIT(A) on 14/4/2021. The delay in filing of appeal before the Learned CIT(A) was attributable to non-service of notices as well as assessment order and also subsequent outbreak of Corona pandemic in the country from January, 2020. The Govt. of India as well

Mitesh Rameshbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4451/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

parte order, without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) also failed to ensure the Service of Notices issued as in para 5.1 & 5.2 of the CIT(A) order the Ld. CIT (A) has mentioned regarding issuance of notice only and nothing ... Assessee was prevented from responding to notice of hearing. 2.3 Further the Ld. CIT (A) a passed the ex-parte order without any service of Notice of hearing physically at address of assessee either. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only issue in the said appeal

Jullundue Motor Agency Delhi Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3625/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.10.2023. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the service of the order and the service of notices issued under section 250 of the Act are not in accordance with the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 and hence, the proceedings are liable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, New Delhi, Delhi vs. India Finsec Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3591/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 158BSection 68

notice u/s 143(2) was issued to him before the completion of assessment proceedings. To enquire the allegation with regard to non-service of notice u/s 143(3) from the record, a report from the Assessing Officer was called by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has issued ... produce the copy of the notice issued u/s 143(2) nor could not substantiate in any corroborative way the factum of issue and service of notice u/s 143(2). We have gone through the Assessment Order wherein the issue of other notices was mentioned but the Assessment Order nowhere mentions

Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, Kanpur vs. ACIT-3, Kanpur

ITA 108/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.108/Lkw/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Arun Kumar Chaturvedi 12/9, Vishno Puri Colony, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. Pan: Abcpc6864F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Kanpur . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : None [Adjournment Rejected] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1059274800(1) Dt. 02/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 31/03/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Anent To The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Contractor Is A Proprietor Of M/S Hi-Tech Controls Filed His Return Of Income Declaring ₹16,43,890/- For The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By

For Appellant: None [Adjournment Rejected]For Respondent: Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 253(1)(a)Section 40Section 41(1)

assessee was selected for scrutiny by ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4 Arun Kumar Chaturvedi Vs ACIT ITA No.108/LKW/2024 AY: 2013-14 service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the event of assessee’s failure to substantiate genuineness of seven sundry creditors viz; M/s Technical Power Corp

Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Shrawasti vs. ITO, WD 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 306/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal (Self)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

above notification, as per existing provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, jurisdiction over assessee resided with local Income Tax Authority and service of notice can be made through various modes as prescribed. However, this scheme over- ruled such provisions and gained much liberty and power in terms of exercise ... jurisdiction and validity of service of notice. The assessment can be done by any officer allocated through System and further, service of notice can be done at various addresses on record. To enable so, Section 143(3B) has been introduced by Finance Act, 2018 and the notification has been brought

Ganesh Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Ax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2) (Previously Ward-3(3)(8)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 674/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without giving the details of service of notice of hearing before both the authorities. Therefore, it would be appropriate to remand this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer

Mohit Garg, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 16, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2580/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2579 & 2580/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Verma Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

opportunity of hearing/ make submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to make submissions before the AO on service of notice. If, the assessee fails to respond to the notice served by the AO, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed ex-parte

Mohit Garg, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 16, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2579/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2579 & 2580/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Verma Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Arjun, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward 1, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 577/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Service Provider and has given his E-mail-id. Therefore, in such a situation, the assessee was not aware regarding the issue of service of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act which in my view is a reasonable cause put forth by the assessee in not responding

Sh. Onkar Syal, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 347/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

affidavit that in one case e-mail id was not regularly checked but in the other case, there is no dispute about the service of notice. The ld. AR of the assessee choose to remain silent on that aspect of the matter. The ld. DR also submitted that since

Sh. Onkar Syal, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 346/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Vivek Vasant Tawde, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1421/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, DR

Section 250Section 54F

appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Even in the present appeal before us, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the service of notice. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted one more opportunity