“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

Jaynik Mahendrakumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24 (2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3169/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Jaynik Mahendrakumar Shah, Earlier Ito Ward 24(2)(2), Mumbai Flat No. 802, 8Th Floor, Now Ito Ward 24(2)(1), Vs. Arunodaya Chsl, Juhu Lane, Piramal Chambers, Opp. New Indiastaff Colony, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Abups 6099 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhargavi Raval : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 : 25/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Bhargavi Raval

Section 148Section 69C

learned CIT (A) erred in passing the order without ensuring service of learned CIT (A) erred in passing the order without ensuring service of notice or intimation and/or offering opportunity to make submissions to notice or intimation and/or offering opportunity to make submissions to notice or intimation and/or offering opportunity

Sunil Kumar Singh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 60(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 205/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.205/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Sunil Kumar Singh, S/172, S Block, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi 110092 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bbfps-2668-B बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 60(2), Room No. 307, F Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi 110002 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2024 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 The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri Tarun Chanana, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That This Appeal Is Against An Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Cit(A). He

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Chanana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to provide his current/functional email id to the AO for 3 service of notice. Upon service of notice, the assessee shall make submissions before the AO without fail. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Manish Bhupendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 194/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not at all commented on the service of notices which was issued to the assessee whether that has been served to the assessee and has received by the assessee or not. Besides this

Vijay Kumar Parekh, Indore vs. Ward1(1) Indore, Indore

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

ITA 549/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 70

submitted sub-section (2) provides the limitation of 30 days for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) from the date of service of notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty or the date on which intimation of order sought to be appeal against is served. Thus

Late Lodaya Navalbai Raichand by Legal Heir Shri. Sharad R Lodaya, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gadag

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

ITA 39/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

issued to the deceased assessee after her death is bad in law as the requirement u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 of service of notice was not fulfilled in the facts of the case. Page 10 of 12 12.4. The argument of the Ld.DR that the defect was curable

Shri Manoj Ramsakal Rai, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan

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

ITA 4093/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blemanoj Ramsakal Rai V. Acit – Circle – 3 Harikunj, Santosh Nagar 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Tisgaon, Kalyan (E)-421306 Murbad Road Kalyan (W)-421301 Pan: Aaopr1362Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Dr. P. Daniel Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

Considering the peculiar facts of the case in hand, we do not find any merit in the challenge to the issue and service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The grounds related to this issue are dismissed. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, we find

Sumit Maheshwari, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.779/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

notice on assessee. 4) Assessee filed appeal against 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.10000/-, but not relief by CIT(A). 5) Hence without service of notice u/s 271(1)(b) penalty is not justified. Because new address was I.T.A.No.779/Del/2023 available with Assessing officer, but no communication made

Anoop Nopany, Kolata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1381/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anoop Nopany………………….…….…................…...……………....Appellant P-39, 2Nd Floor, Princep Street, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Abfpn3215L] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kedia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 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 19.07.2023 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(Appeal) Nfac, Failed To Notice That Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)/263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab-Initio, Lacks Jurisdiction Since Original Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passes U/S 143(3) Was Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio. & Consequentially Any

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

points raised by the appellant partly, did agree with the contention mainly with regard to the observations of the mandatory requirement of service of notice upon the appellant resulting in the passing of the order under Section 147 of the Act and held that if the order under Section

Mr.P.C.Jose, Cochin vs. DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

None appeared for the assessee when the matter was called out for hearing, and neither is there any application for adjournment, despite service of notice of hearing sent at the email ID of the firm of CAs, M/s. Kaimal & Co., whose partner, Sri Tino Anto, has been appearing

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Chamna Ram, Pali

Accordingly, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3155/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Chamna Ram -19(1)(5) Bera Pipliya Seeriyari, Pali Vs. 501, Piramal Chamber, Parel, Rajasthan-306023 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bvmpr7717M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR

Section 133Section 142Section 144Section 69A

cannot be allowed. 07. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore because of the non-appearance of the assessee despite service of notice, the issue is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record. 08. We have carefully considered the contentions

Sunil Yashwnt Patil, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle Sagli, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 176/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.176/Pun/2024 Assessment Year 2017-18 Sunil Yashwant Patil, Vs. Acit, A/P. Yelavi, Taluka Tasgaon, Circle Sangli Dist. Sangli – 416319 Maharashtra Pan : Ayzpp0011F Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 194CSection 250

Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. 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 qua the appellant

Neera Dhupar, Delhi vs. I T O, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3051/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2011-12 Neera Dhupar, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), 1E/15, Jhandewalan Noida (Up) Extension, Delhi-1100 55

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) to dispose of the specific ground raised by the assessee on service of notice under Section 148 of the Act after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since, the outcome of the decision on service

Pravin Mohanrao Shetkar, Solapur vs. Income Tax Office Ward-2, Latur

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

ITA 508/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.508/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

serious objection. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the matter after hearing the ld. Sr. DR. 6. Heard the ld. Sr.DR and carefully examined the facts of the case

Neena Kailas Jadhav, Thane vs. ACIT Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 901/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.901/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 10(3)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

present appeal. 3 5. When the matter was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. 6. Since the issue in the present appeal is no more res integra, covered by several judicial precedents as well

Sunshine Foods & Beverages, Solapur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.498/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: None

Section 115BSection 133A

Tribunal in the present appeal. 3 4. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the matter after hearing the ld. Sr. DR. 5. Heard the ld. Sr.DR and carefully examined

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate vs. Grupo Antolin India Private Limited, Pune

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1118/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1118/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Dhanraj Dangi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Akhilesh Srivastava [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 92C

assessee was subsequently revised declaring total loss of ₹2,07,67,090/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In assessment proceedings upon coming to notice that, the assessee had undertaken certain international transactions

Sanjay Kumar Tingrikar, Hyderabad vs. JCIT., Rang-7, Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.183/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sanjay Kumar Vs. Jt. Cit, Range-7 Tingrikar, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppt8912F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav Dr Appeared For Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/04/2024

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav DR appeared for Smt. Sheetal

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

parte for non-appearance. He further submitted that the reasons for non-appearance before the learned CIT (A) is on account of non-service of notices issued by the learned CIT (A) fixing the case for hearing. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the learned Page

Munish Haresh Tahiliani, Mumbai vs. ITO -20(20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 4051/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

Decision 6. In this case, the appellant has not effectively pursued the appellate proceedings, rather not pursued his case at all, despite the service of notices as mentioned in paras above. Notices as mentioned above were sent, but there was no response from the appellant. 6.1 Finally a notice dated

Chandravadan Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 674/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandravadan Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Sb Tower, 3Rd Floor Vs Kolkata 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabdh5812Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 09/05/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 30/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed By Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Inspite Of Being Aware That Chandravadan Desai Huf Had Been Partitioned & Had Ceased To Exist Upon Its Partition On The 26Th Day Of March 2014 & The Impugned Penalty Order Passed By The Ao In The Name Of Chandravadan Desai Huf, A Non-Existent Person Was Invalid & Therefore The Order Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

filed its return of income on 28/07/2014 declaring Nil income. Case selected for scrutiny under CASS followed by issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Various details as called for were filed along with producing documents and books of accounts. The ld. Assessing Officer

Commissioner for Govt Examinations, Poojappura vs. DCIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 994/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

None appeared for the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion despite service of notice of hearing. Hearing in the matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. 5. We have heard the party before us, and perused the material