“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

Manmohan Singh & Sons, Ludhiana vs. CIT(A), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost as directed above

ITA 674/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

appellant reserves its right to amend, add or alter any grounds of appeal before the final hearing of the case. 5. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. There was also no request for adjournment. Therefore, the appeal is taken

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Avtar Singh Kochar, Haryana

ITA 4438/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. MayankPatawari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AlashOjha, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 153D

account or other documents; and by Finance Act, 2009, clause (c) was inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service

Income Tax Officer, Khanna vs. Rohit Gupta, Khanna

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

ITA 861/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: it is finally disposed of.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed of. 3. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of the hearing. There is also no request for adjournment. Therefore, the appeal is taken

Shri K.D.Parmar, Incometax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Dharmesh Rajnikant Trivedi, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 178/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

178/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 4 ITO Vs. Dharmesh Rajnikant Trivedi 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice through Department. Today is the 12th time of hearing of this appeal. Even earlier occasions notices were served through Department and Acknowledgements are available

Sharda Devi Singh, Raipur vs. ITO, Mahasamund

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

ITA 632/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 632/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sharda Devi Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, W/O Shri Shailendra Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, K-8, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, Mahasamund- 493445, Raipur-492001, C.G. C.G. Pan: Clzps1287D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69

Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding appeal without service of notice. Resultantly, appellate order is illegal & unsustainable. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits. The appellate order passed

Dhirendra Pratap, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Ward-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

No.467/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 7 Act after issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The issuance and service of notice under section 143 (2) of the Act is mandatory and not procedural. The Ld. Sr. D.R. could not controvert the fact that notice under section

Rakesh Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Barabanki

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

letter: 5.1 A perusal of the last paragraph, i.e., paragraph 4 in the above said letter, specifically lays down that the process of service of notice under section 142(1) of the Act should be completed by 31.12.2017. A perusal of the assessment order itself shows that the notice under

The Jindva Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-5 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 516/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270A(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

Society and were not being monitored by it. Therefore, in our considered view, the impugned order has been passed without effective service of notice on the correct email ID furnished by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the The Jindva Seva ... adjudication afresh on merits, after providing due and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after ensuring service of notices on the correct email ID. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court

Balguri Rajeshwar Rao, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1728/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1728/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: T Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

statements clearly showing repeated deposits and withdrawals of the same TDR amounts. 7. That the reopening and assessment proceedings were completed without proper service of notices and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 8. That the addition made merely

Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 589/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR and Ms. Payal Gupta, SR-DR

Section 147Section 148

writ petitions ( not served ) itself on 01.04.2021 or on a later date. The question of service of these notices and the date of service of notices upon the petitioners is of no relevance or consequence in all these writ petitions, as the notices itself have been dispatched from the office ... same is issued in the manner as prescribed under section 282 r/w rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules prescribing the mode of service of notice under the Act. The signing of notice would not amount to issuance of notice as contemplated under section 149 of the Act. In other

Desu Enterprises, Ongole vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 549/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2013-14) 1. M/S. Desu Enterprises, Ongole (A.P.) Pan: Aagfd1940C 2. Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam. Pan: Αιτpg3044K (Appellants) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. (Respondents) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr & Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Desu Enterprises & Shri Thalla Srisailam Goud (“The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.02.2024 & 09.04.2024 For The A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Respondent: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate

Section 147Section 148

Rajroop Doshi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

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 ... notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself.” 10.Respectfully following the propositions

Sundarasamy Rep. by Kokila, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2207/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250

prior approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Coimbatore to file the return of income within 30 days of the service of notice.” 11. When we apply the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the decision of the Coordinate Bench

Sundarasamy Rep. by Kokila, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2206/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250

Sundarasamy Kohila, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250

Vadiappan Senthilmurugan, Erode vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2188/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250

prior approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Coimbatore to file the return of income within 30 days of the service of notice." 11. When we apply the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the decision of the Coordinate Bench

Seethadevi, Erode vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2171/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250

Arunraj, Erode vs. ACIT, Central Circ 3, Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2168/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250

Everyeady Spinning Mills Private Limited, Triupur vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2144/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Himanshu Goel, Mayur Vihar Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5232/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Unexplained Sundry Creditors (Rs.51,58,301/-) (Original Ground No. 3) The AO added Rs.51,58,301/- as unexplained sundry creditors due to non-service of notices or non-reply from creditors. The appellant, however, has consistently argued that these are genuine trading liabilities arising from purchases, duly recorded ... Similarly, ITO vs. Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) found it a wrong interpretation of law to add sundry creditors merely due to non-service of notice u/s 133(6) without disallowing corresponding purchases. The principle from Lycos India Limited vs. ITO (Supra) further emphasizes that doubting current liabilities while accepting