“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

Akshay Devendra Birari, Nashik vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Nashik

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

ITA 782/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.782/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2023-24 Akshay Devendra Birari, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, 103/2, Shriheramb, Bengaluru Mitranagar, Baglan, Satana, Nashik 423 301 Maharashtra Pan : Bpfpb7648N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar

Section 115BSection 143(1)(a)

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, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte

Malda Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Englishbazar Malda vs. Ward 3(2) Malda, Malda

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

ITA 1054/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 3(1)Section 69Section 69A

submitted that the order of the AO has been challenged before the ld. CIT(A) but unfortunately, wherein also appellant in absence of service of notice could not be appeared as a result of which order of the AO has been confirmed by ld. CIT(A) without going over

Mohammed Sabir Babubhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 687/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT (V. C)

Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 185/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

without serving any notice U/s 142(1) or U / s * 143(2) or U/s 144 or U/s 156 on the assessee. Procedure of service of notice was not at all followed. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 184/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Gold Star Amco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1198/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

upon the assessee before 30th of September 2013 and, as such, framing of assessment by the Assessing Officer without observing mandatory requirement of service of notice is not valid and the assessment proceedings deserves to be quashed. 2. That the finding of the CIT(A) about service of notice

M/S Gold Star Amco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Ifb Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 212/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ifb Automotive Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Plot No. Ind-V, Sector-1 Vs Tax, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata East Kolkata Township Kasba Industrial Estate Kolkata - 700107 [Pan : Aabci2766H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(L), Kolkata (Assessing Officer) On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 41,61,190/- Ignoring The Provisions Under Section 50 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50

business loss of Rs.7,84,99,201/- and income from other sources at Rs.1,32,59,821/-. Case selected for scrutiny followed by service of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The issue before us relates to disallowance under the head profit on sale of fixed

S432 Kudimenahalli Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Deverahalli vs. Asst.Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 195/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(a)

After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts that this is a transitional period from manual regime to Information Technology for service of notice and for filing of appeals and in view of the reasons stated in affidavit, we are convinced that there is sufficient and reasonable cause

Swasthik Financiers, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Madikeri

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

ITA 752/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115BSection 234ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68

ITA No.752/Bang/2024 Swasthik Financiers, Kodagu IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Zanskar Properties Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 27(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3888/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal and further restore the matter on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving notice afresh include serving on the following email Id provided in Form-36. (i) tarsem@gemsedu.in (ii) Yatin.Sharma@aureuslaw.com.

Section 143(3)

facts that the notices were issued on several occasions and the dates of the same have been mentioned. However, the mode of service of notices of the report of actual services, has not been mentioned. That assessee has came up with a case that the email address and the mobile

Sanatan Dharam Parcharak Sabha Regd., Ludhiana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 278/CHANDI/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, 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 A.Y. 2023-24 3 matter now stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Munjal

Talegaon Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-9(3), Pune

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

ITA 743/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.743/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2020-21 Talegaon Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Patsanstha Limited, Pune Bajar Peth, Talegaon Dabhade, Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune 410506 Maharashtra Pan : Aabat3160G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placing

Shree Kalika Devi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Karad, Karad vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

ITA 419/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Kalika Devi Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit 6/1, Kasar Galli, Guruwar Peth, Karad Ta.: Karad, Dist.: Satara-415110 Pan: Aaaak3735D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satara . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024 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/250/2023-24/1059407077(1) Dt. 05/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/06/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 80P(2)

facilities, for the year under consideration had filed its return declaring NIL income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the event of assessee’s failure to ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4 Shree Kalika Devi Nagari

Soil & Water Consevation Department, Latur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Range-Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 41/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 200(3)Section 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar

ITA 392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.392/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit At Post: Maldad, Tal.:Sangamner, Dist.: Ahmednagar-422608 Pan: Abbak1395E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 80P(2)

Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit ITA No.392/PUN/2024 AY: 2018-19 declaring NIL income. The case of the assessee was selected for 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 Jalgaon Peoples Co-Operative Bank Limited, Jalgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1 Jalgaon, Jalgaon

ITA 185/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.185/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Jalgaon People Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425001. Pan: Aacat1603M . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4 The Jalgaon People Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No.185/PUN/2024 AY: 2016-17 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 of various expenses

Centre for Development Communication Trust, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 621/JPR/2023[2017-18 onwards]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 40A(3)

fixing date of compliance on or before 29.03.2023. This notice has also been sent through e mail in which the status for service of notice is shown as "delivered". This time, also assessee just resubmitted its already submitted reply on 28.03.2023. Thereafter another notice was issued to assesseeon 17/08/2023, where

Subhash Sadashiv Sathe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 14(4), Pune

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

ITA 745/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.745/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 143(3)

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of 5. the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte

Ramling Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Ahmednagar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar, Ahemdnagar

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.726 To 728/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade

Section 144Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)