← All Phrases

“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
75
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
73
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
68
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
68
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
63
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. Swaviman Services Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 773/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Swaviman Services Private Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs 12(2), Kolkata Limited 84, Panchanantal Road 2Nd Floor, Block-A Flat No. 204 Liluah Howrah - 711204 [Pan : Aadcs5897D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27/12/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Ex-Parte & Assessee Also Failed To Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & The Impugned Additions Are On Account Of Unexplained Share Capital & Share Premium. Referring To The Audited Balance Sheet, He Submitted That The Assessee Has Not Received Any Share Capital & Share Premium During The Year. However, Since The Assessee Did Not Appear Before The Lower Authorities, An Opportunity May Be Granted To Furnish Necessary Details To Prove That No Fresh Share Capital & Share

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Assessment Year 2014-15 on 23/06/2015 declaring loss of Rs. 71,779/-. After the case being selected for scrutiny through CASS, followed by service of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee did not comply to the notices by neither appearing in person nor through

Shri Raghvendra Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2416/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69CSection 94(7)

assessee did not 8 Raghvendra Mohta, AY 2014-15 raise objection in accordance with sec. 124(3) within 30 days of issuance of service of notice u/s. 143(2) and participated in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, he has no legal ground to challenge the assessment at this stage

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

notice(s) came to be served on the appellant at the designated email stated in Form No. 35 for the purpose of service of notice(s). Backbone Tarmet NG JV Vs. ITO AY : 2005-06 2 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFSC erred on facts

Ambereen Islam., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir- 40, Kolkata.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1222/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Deepak Kedia vs. ACIT in ITA No. 881/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2014-15; order dt. 03/11/2023 wherein also the issue regarding the validity of service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been adjudicated and relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- “4. According to Ld. Counsel ... 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

Sant Shiromani Iccha Purti Shri Balaji Charitable Trust, Balaji Colony, Jakhal Road vs. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 572/CHANDI/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Paras Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 282Section 80G(5)

addressed at the email address of the assessee and which has not happened in the instant case. It was accordingly submitted that no service of notice was ever affected on the assessee and therefore, in interest of justice, the assessee be allowed an opportunity to represent its case ... material available on record. Merely uploading of notice about the scheduled date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 127(2)(b) of Income tax Rules. The same

Sanjeev Kumar Through Legal Heir, Faridkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I Ludhiana

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

ITA 545/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 282

addressed at the email address of the assessee and which has not happened in the instant case. It was accordingly submitted that no service of notice was ever affected on the assessee and therefore, in interest of justice, the assessee be allowed an opportunity to represent its case ... available 4. on record. Merely uploading of notice about the scheduled date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 127(2)(b) of Income tax Rules. The same

Pushpanjali Alkalis Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

ITA 1556/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpushpanjali Alkalis Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. D Ostwal & Associates, Ward No. 20(2), 310, Competent House, F- New Delhi 14, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcp9502G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR placed on record the factual report with regard to issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. It was also submitted in the said factual report of the ld AO that time limit for issuance

The Kadavalur Service Cooperative Bank Limited No3821, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Guruvayur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 639/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Sri.Dileep Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 56Section 57Section 80A(5)Section 80P

valid return. We see no reason for it being not so. Sure, it stands filed after 30 days of the service of notice on 01.04.2017, i.e., the maximum time admissible for compliance of notice u/s.148(1). So, however, the same can be extended at the discretion

Jaswant Singh Yadav, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1973/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute the escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe

Idream Social Edtech Foundation, Panchkula vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 809/CHANDI/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Apr 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Parsad Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282

information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an ITA 808 & 809/CHD/2023 A.Y.2021-22 & 2024-25 6 effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The matter now stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional

Idream Social Edtech Foundation, Panchkula vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 808/CHANDI/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Parsad Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282

information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an ITA 808 & 809/CHD/2023 A.Y.2021-22 & 2024-25 6 effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The matter now stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional

DCIT, Central Circle-2.4, Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 212/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.212/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.9/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.212/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

illegal as the completion of assessment under irrelevant section is bad in law. 10.The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the service of notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory, after the filing of return of income by the Respondent-assessee in respect of assessment proceedings u/s 153C. 11.The ... issue of notice u/s 153C when the proceedings u/s 153A was already initiated. In Ground Nos.8 & 9, the assessee contest issue and service of notice u/s 143(2). We do not find any substance in the same and concur with the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) which is contained

DCIT, Central Circle-2.4, Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 211/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.211/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.8/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.211/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)

illegal as the completion of assessment under irrelevant section is bad in law. 8.The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the service of notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory, after the filing of return of income by the Respondent-assessee in respect of assessment proceedings u/s 153C. 9.The ... issue of notice u/s 153C when the proceedings u/s 153A was already initiated. In Ground Nos.8 & 9, the assessee contest issue and service of notice u/s 143(2). We do not find any substance in the same and concur with the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) which is contained

Transnational Growth Fund Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-25(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 66/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year 2015-16 Transnational Growth Ito Fund Ltd., R-815, New Ward- 25 (3) Rajinder Nagar, North Vs. New Delhi East, New Delhi-110060 Pan No.Aaact0610Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

facts of the case there is no denial that NFAC has dismissed the appeal in limine though there is a reference of service of notice through e-mail but the appeal has been dismissed in limine. 5. We deem it fit to restore the appeal to the files

Yuva Jagriti Evam Jan Kalyan Mission Trust, Bhiwani vs. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3316/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year 2021-22 Yuva Jagriti Evam Jan Cit(Exemption) Kalyan Mission Trust, Shri Chandigarh Hanuman Jodi Dham, Vs. Hanuman Dhani, Bhiwani, Haryana -127021 Pan No.Aaaty5261B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 282Section 282(1)Section 80G

provisions of section 282(1) and rule 127(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice and orders. [Para 7] It is essential that before any action is taken, a communication of the notice must be in terms of the provisions

Laxmikant Tak, Panchsheel Ajmer vs. DCIT Circle -2 Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 110/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. C. M. AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

erred on the facts and in lawin not accepting the ground for completing the assessment byLD AO without issuance and service of notice under section143(2) of the Act which is a mandatory requirement. In this case, notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward -2(4) Jaipur ... allegation does not merit acceptance Furthermore, as stated in para 7 1 if the appellant had any objection to the issue and service of notice, he should have raised these objections at the time of the assessment proceedings itself. No proof of having done so has been submitted in these

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Best Auto Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6707/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 130Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 68

capital was shown to be from 17 companies but learned AO has randomly issued notices to 7 parties and based upon the non- service of notices on two parties, discredited all the transactions. Learned CIT(A) has appreciated the fact that assessee had provided voluminous details and evidences and without ... considered view that learned AO had primarily proceeded to doubt the transactions on the basis of lack of postal services of notices in regard to three companies. Learned AO by very general references has drawn a conclusion that the financials of these investment companies is not satisfactory. At the same

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

dated 07.03.2019 was issued and served on the assessee requiring to file the return of income within 15 days from the date of service of notice. In response to the notice u/s 153C, assessee filed the returns of income of the block years on 26.03.2019. 7.3 Regarding satisfaction note ... dated 07.03.2019 was issued and served on the assessee requiring to file the return of income within 15 days from the date of service of notice. In response to the notice u/s 153C, assessee filed the returns of income of the block years on 26.03.2019. 7.3 Regarding satisfaction note

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

dated 07.03.2019 was issued and served on the assessee requiring to file the return of income within 15 days from the date of service of notice. In response to the notice u/s 153C, assessee filed the returns of income of the block years on 26.03.2019. 7.3 Regarding satisfaction note

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

dated 07.03.2019 was issued and served on the assessee requiring to file the return of income within 15 days from the date of service of notice. In response to the notice u/s 153C, assessee filed the returns of income of the block years on 26.03.2019. 7.3 Regarding satisfaction note