“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

Anil Jain, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1192/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

matter. 3.1 Section 249(2) of the Act contemplates that appeal shall be presented within 30 days from the date of service of notice of demand relating to assessment or penalty. Section 249(3) of the Act however confers statutory discretion to the CIT(A) to admit an appeal after

Gopesh Gagjibhai Sutariya, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 413/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 57

dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution without discussing the matter on merit as well as not given the details of service of notices given to the assessee for hearing before the CIT(A). Thus, the matter needs proper verification and adjudication and, therefore, matter is remanded back

Punjab Police Welfare Fund, Chandigarh vs. ITO (Exemptions), Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 600/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

opportunity to present its case. 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

7Th Battalion Telangana State Special Police, Nizambad vs. ITO Ward 3, Nizambad

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

ITA 556/HYD/2024[20172018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 556/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Commandant Income Tax Officer, 7Th Battalion Telangana Vs. Ward-3, State Special Police, Nizamabad Dichpally, Nizamabad [Pan: Aaeat9580D] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: None राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 13/06/2024

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

Police, (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal, with a delay of 26 days. 2. In spite of service of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. I noticed that explaining the reasons for delay, assessee filed an affidavit, stating that since the assessee

Gazal Caterers, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7752/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

assessee at the outset submitted that the return of income was filed u/s 139(1) on 25.09.2009. The statutory time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) was 30.09.2010. In the instant case, the notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 05.11.2011 which is after expiry of 6 months ... assessee on account of postal Department findings that the assessee has ‘left’. 13. The assessee did not take up the issue of service of notice u/s 143(2) beyond the prescribed period before the AO nor he raked up this issue before the CIT(A). This is the first time

Pioneer Cranes & Elevators Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 658/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 658/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-10 Pioneer Cranes & Elevators Vs. The Dcit /Acit, बनाम Central Circle -1, Private Limited, Ludhiana Opp. Iti Gill Road, Ludhiana 141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaecp5976D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT Sr. DR

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

Jaymitra Suna, Sambalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 820/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.820/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh NairFor Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)

result, the assessment came to be made u/s.144. In my 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 the appellant ... Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment

Mahatma Gandhi Charitable Medical Trust, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

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

ITA 819/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.819/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 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. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

difference between the phrases ‘issue' and 'service', we refer to section 148 and section 149 of the Act. Section 148 requires the service of notice before making assessment/reassessment/re-computation u/s.147. Whereas, section 149 requires issuance of notice before the expiry of the period of limitation for initiating proceedings. Noticing this distinction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur vs. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Kolhapur

ITA 301/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune10 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.0301/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolhapur . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. B-1 Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur-416234 Pan: Aaaak0230D . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pranjal Phadnis [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Keyur Patel & Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Revenue Challenges The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] In Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058957688(1) Dt. 21/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Respective Orders Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Pranjal Phadnis [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel & Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 2.2 The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the event of assessee’s failure to substantiate its eligibility & entitlement for deduction the Ld. AO culminated

Vijay Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. I.T.O, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 774/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT

Section 249(3)

regard, the appellant has changed the stand now stating that this as a sub-ground. As per the remand report, the issue of service of notice is settled and therefore, the reasons given for delay in filing of appeal are not found acceptable. The appellant has not furnished any documentary ... notice was received as admitted by ld. AO in order appealed against nor any efforts were made by the Id. AO for alternate service of notice or at the address given in Returns submitted. Only on attachment of bank account, appellant could know about ex-parte order. At the request

Manak Garg, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manak Garg (Individual), Vs. Ito, Ward 59(1), F-17, West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi Delhi-1100 92 Pan: Aaccn8595N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 80C

without any evidence. 6. As we go through the grounds raised, we find that there is an averment that there was no proper service of notice under Section 149 of the Act, however, with that regard to same there is no submission or material on record. The claim of assessee

Abbasbhai Sajaudinbhai Barad, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure of service of notice through other mode of service prescribed in Income Tax Statute. Thus, E-proceedings facility and issuance of the notices was not received by the assessee

Shri Dilip Devjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Cirlce-1(2) Now the Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

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

ITA 101/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 50C

recording of reasons for action u/s 147 was also provided to the assessee. The assessee submitted a letter on 30.07.2014 confirming the service of notice u/s 148 dated 02.07.2014 and filed reply stating therein that return filed on 19.03.2010 should be considered in response to notice

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratnagiri vs. Late Shri Subhash Shankar Waingankar, Through Legal Heir Shri Rushikesh Subhash Waingankar, Ratnagiri

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the legal

ITA 1057/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 250Section 292BSection 46A(3)

should be issued and served on a living person. Since in this case the assessee had already died, there is no question of service of notice on the deceased assessee. Thus, in this case there was no valid notice and no valid service. 4.3 Section 159 of the Income

Mohammed Ragivus Sebtain, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(4), Hyderabd

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

ITA 334/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

case of Mohammed Ragivus Sebtain (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. In spite of service of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since notices were sent through registered mail, properly addressed and prepaid with postage, and also the notice was sent

Income Tax Officer, Raisen vs. Late Sudha Agrawal Th. L/H Manmohan Agrawal, Raisen

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-

ITA 281/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniincome-Tax Officer, Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal, बनाम/ Raisen (L/H: Manmohan Agrawal) Vs. 19/1, Shreeji Enterprise, Near Sbi, Sagar Road, Yashwant Nagar, M.P. (Pan: Abfpa4355G) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 159Section 54F

ISSUED TO A CORRECT PERSON AND NOT TO A DEAD PERSON. CONSEQUENTLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE. 25. In the present case the notice dated 31st March, 2019 under Section ... inevitably the said notice could never have been served upon him. Consequently, the jurisdictional requirement under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 of service of notice was not fulfilled in the present instance. 26. In the opinion of this Court the issuance of a notice under Section

Sai Properties, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 846/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Thirumala Naidu, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Akhil Kesharisinh Dalal, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1076/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleakhil Kesharisinh Dalal V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Office Of The Commissioner Of Income 502, 5Th Floor Tax (Appeals), Add/Jcit(A), Gwalior Gulmohar Road No. 1, Mangal Pranam J V P D Scheme, Mumbai – 400049 Ward Of Jurisdiction Ao Maharashtra Ward-4(1)(1) Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaepd5406D Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Harmesh Lal

only quarrel is in respect of non-reconciliation of Form-26AS with the returned income of the assessee. Though there is mention of service of notice through E-Mail but it seems that adequate opportunity was not given to the assessee. 4. Considering the nature of grievance, we deem

Mohamed Imran Mohamed Siddique Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2900/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL