“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

Sh. Mohan Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cen. Cir-1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 547/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Form 35 at the time of filing of appeal for the purpose of communication. It is therefore a case where there is no service of notice to the assessee. 5. The matter now stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Munjal

Tajdin Hasanali Halani, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Anand

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

ITA 936/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

fairness also submitted before us that even before the Ld. AO, the assessee could not appear because of this particular reason of service of notice was made through e-mail which belongs to the earlier counsel and neither the assessee nor the present Counsel’s. As the matter is ultimately

Ashwini Sahakari Rungnalaya & Research Center, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

based upon which registration was initially denied to it. This denial and reasoning in turn formed as basis for initiating cancellation/withdrawal proceedings by service of notice dt. 23/05/2008 u/s 12AA(3) of the Act. Due to change in jurisdiction upon creation of separate exemption, by an office order dt. 25/08/2016

Bright Singh Chelladurai, Nagercoil vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tirunelveli

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1424/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1424/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Bright Singh Chelladurai Ito बनाम No.5 Nanthanial Street, Ward-1, / Vs. Nagercoil-629 001. Tirunelveli. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atvpb-0028-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 07-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23-10-2023 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act On 22-03-2022. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Ar Sought Adjournment Which Was Rejected By The Bench Considering The Fact That Assessment Has Been Made On Best Judgment Basis & The Assessee Failed To Substantiate Its Case Even Before Ld. Cit(A) Despite Being Provided With Various

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

filed return of income nor provided any explanation with regard to contractual receipts as reflected in Form 26AS . The assessee only objected to service of notice u/s.148 of the Act and the objections were disposed-off by speaking order. In the absence of any explanation forthcoming from the assessee

Daya Singh, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Atlas Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3043/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyadaya Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, 640-P, Sector 23, Sonipat. Sonipat – 131 001 (Haryana).

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 148

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in upholding the validity of assessment without service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is prayed that the impugned assessment order may kindly be quashed.” 3. In this case, in an ex-parte order

Sri. Mohammadali Thayalepurayil, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 13/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 264Section 68

appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have cancelled the order of assessment as there was no valid service of notice u/s.143[2] of the Act on the appellant in time and there was also no valid service of the order and consequently. the order of assessment

Kewal Singh, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 668/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Kewal Singh, Vs. Ito, 162, Tower Wali Gali, Ward-1, Professor Colony, Fatehabad Fatehabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcaps2250P Assessee By : None Revenue By: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

alter any of the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally adjudicated upon.” 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice in physical mode as well as in electronic mode. The case was listed for hearing on 6.7.22 for the first time and thereafter

Laxmikant Chandrakant Kotalwar, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Latur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1147/PUN/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 250(6)

r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest despite service of notice. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-8(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 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, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 145Section 250Section 43C

declared in the e-return for Assessment Year 2017-18 filed on 28/03/2018. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by service of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is into the construction business. The ld. Assessing Officer

M/S Mahakavi Edasseri Smaraka Trust, Thrissur vs. The ITO Exemption Ward, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmahakavi Edasseri Smaraka Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) 0, Kumkumam, Kanattukara Thrissur Vs. Thrissur 680001 [Pan:Aadtm8374N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

dated 08.01.2020. 2. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out despite service of notice of hearing, nor was there any adjournment motion. There has in fact been no representation by/for the assessee in this case throughout, with the Bench on each occasion

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)

Section 131Section 144

served and returned received back unserved. In the first remand report dated 29.01.2016 the Ld. AO had made verification after service of notice through notice server and found this purchases as being genuine and after the expiry of two years, during the second remand proceedings, the ld. AO stated that

Income Tax Officer- 42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavik Jayant Gandhi, Kandivali(W), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2639/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Yashashree Builders and Developers, Pune vs. Income Tax E Assessment, Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 997/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.997/Pun/2023 Assessment Year 2014-15 Yashashree Builders & Developers, Vs. Ito, Tds-3, Swami Suryakiran Society, Pune S.No.16/16, Vishal Nagar, Pimple Nilakh, Pune 411027 Maharashtra Pan : Aabyf1726C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 246Section 250

Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We, therefore, 2 proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee and after hearing the ld. DR. 3. Briefly, the facts

Pravin Vasant Salukhe, Lote Khed vs. ITO, Ratnagiri Ward, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1083/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 Pravin Vasant Salukhe, Vs. Ito, 387A, Gavaliwadi, Ratnagiri Ward, Ghanekhunt, Lote Khed, Ratnagiri Dist. Ratnagiri – 415722 Maharashtra Pan : Cnips2762J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 144Section 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

Sudhir Jagannath Bhongale, Pune Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Wartd 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 1022/PUN/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1022/Pun/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 Sudhir Jagannath Bhongale, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(3), F-10, Yajanagandha Soc., Pune Shivtirth Nagar, Paud Road, Pune 411 038, Maharashtra Pan : Abapb6619D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

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 2 the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the appellant

Income Tax Officer, Koramangala Bangalore vs. Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore

ITA 653/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.653/Bang/2023 Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.653/Bang/2023 Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Supreme Ceramics Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3761/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

assessee, we 2 Supreme Ceramics Ltd. remand the matter to the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues afresh after proper service of notice to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/02/2024

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3742/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY.S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.Gopal and Om Kandalkar,AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

residing in UAE for the past several years. The assessee had given address of his father in the Income Tax Department for service of notice. His father had also shifted from the said given address. Since, the appellant/assessee had no income from any source in India, the appellant never filed

Ranjan Suresh Ghia, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3575/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Sajal SaravariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 69

provisions of section 249(2) which permits an appeal to be filed against assessment order within 30 days from the date of the service of notice of demand. In the present case, the date of the service of notice of demand is 30th January 2018. 5. On the facts