“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

Chief Manger, Canra Bank ( Person Responsible), Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer ( TDS ) Circle, Jammu

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

ITA 187/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Vinamar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

adjudicate the issues on merits after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee with due service of notices, show cause notice before passing the appellate order. He undertakes to co-operate in the fresh appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR has no objection ... record that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the fact of issue of notice but he has not mentioned the fact of service of notices upon the assessee appellant. In view of principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter to the file

ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Valencia Corporation, Surat

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 257/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Valencia Corporation, Central Circle-4, S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu-Rundh Vs. Surat. Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 17/Srt/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 257/Srt/2022)(Ay: 2016-17) M/S Valencia Corporation, A.C.I.T. S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu- Central Circle-4, Vs. Rundh Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Surat. Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant/Objector Respondednt

Section 250(4)Section 250(5)Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

deleted. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. On service of notice of memo of appeal, the assessee has filed its cross objection as recorded above raising the grounds of C.O. as noted above. 9. We have heard the submissions

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1710/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mack Star Marketing National Feceless Appeal Private Limited Centre, Delhi Vs. Dheeraj Apartment Ii P.P Dais Compound, Natwar Nagar Road No. 2 Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai- 400060 Pan No. Aadcm7564K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Sinha Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit. Dr : Date Of Hearing 06/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu SinhaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 249

have gone through the Assessment Order and submissions of the appellant. of the appellant. It is observed that the date of service of notice of It is observed that the date of service of notice of demand as declared by the appellant is 2nd April 2016 and the demand

M/S Jayshri Structures, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 149/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

DCIT 2. Today is the 12th time of hearing of the above appeal, None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notices and no authorization given to any Representative. Therefore with the available materials on record, we proceed with the hearing of the above appeal

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

instant case, even though a plea was taken by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the objection in relation to non-service of notice contemplated under Section 143(2) of the Act was not an issue before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Shri Om Parkash ( HUF), Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 257/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee with valid service of notice to enable him to participate in the appellate proceedings. The appellant- assessee is directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings before

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mota Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2195/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchases made by it were bogus. In the case of Nikunj Exim Export, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that non service of notice does not conclusively prove the non genuineness of a transaction. By producing various documents the assessee had proved that balance of convenience

Jagdish R. Mookhey, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)_4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3152/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Us Is, Whether The ‘Reasons Recorded’ By The Ld. Ao U/S.148 Were Communicated To The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Or Not. Here In This Case, This Issue Was Adjudicated By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29/11/2013 Wherein, The Tribunal Has Held That, As Per The Order Sheet Entry Dated 08/12/2009, The Reasons For Reopening Was Given By Ld A.O Vide Letter Dated 18/12/2009 Alongwith Show-Cause Notice U/S.142(1). However, This Finding Of The Tribunal Was Challenged Before The Hon’Ble High Court Wherein The Hon’Ble High Court Has Set Aside This Issue To The Tribunal Vide Judgment & Order Dated 06/12/2016 In Income Tax Appeal No.965 Of 2014. For The Sake Of Ready Reference, The Entire Judgment Of The High Court Is Reproduced Hereunder:- 1. This Appeal Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act") Challenges The Order Dated 29Th November 2013. Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("The Tribunal') The Impugned Order Is In Respect Of Assessment Year 2005-06

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260A

Section 292B of the Act. Assessee did not raise this issue at any stage before the ld. AO or ld. CIT (A). Further, service of notice has been provided in Section 282 and once communication has been sent through speed post at correct address, it is deemed to be service

ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Jagdish R. Mookhey, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2956/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260A

Shri Mohammad Abbas Ashraf, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Srinagar

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

ITA 207/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

High Court in case of CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 0333)has held that in the absence of a valid service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law, (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT (Central ... Chetan Gupta ITANo. 1891/del/2012 dated 15.09.2015; 382 ITR 613 has held that no reassessment can take place without service of notice being affected on the assessee or his authorized representative. (iv). Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Ceban India

Bharatbhai Naginbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 393/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)

task of attending income-tax proceedings during assessment has failed to guide appellant or said accountant also failed to inform appellant about service of notices and consequently appellant failed to present any evidences and any explanation or information for submission of fact of arising sale proceeds of agricultural produce having ... attending notices of assessment and also failure to inform about assessment order dated 13/11/2019 which fact came to knowledge of appellant only upon service of notice of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act 1961, dated 07/09/2021 by fortuitous circumstances and hence appellant ceased to rely upon accountant

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Vpo-Gothra Teh-Tijara vs. ITO Ward - Bhiwadi, Alwar

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

ITA 577/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

case, Id.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the AO in completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 without proper service of notice u/s 148 thus the proceedings so initiated deserves to be hold bad in law and consequent order passed deserves to be quashed

Jainam Exports, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 566/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Jainam Exports, I.T.O., 201, Adinath Apartment, Jadakhadi, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003, Surat. Gujarat. Pan No. Aadfj 1363 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

reopening, the assessee also raised legal plea before Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(A) that at the time of service of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), the firm was dissolved. Such fact was communicated to the Assessing

Sakku Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 448/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 144Section 147Section 148

compliance of section 147 without issuance of the notice u/s 148, the Ld. ITO has not mentioned the evidence of dispatch and service of notice u/s 148 of the Act.” 2.2 In ITA No. 447/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... compliance of section 147 without issuance of the notice u/s 148, the Ld. ITO has not mentioned the evidence of dispatch and service of notice as 148 of the Act. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. ITO has erred

Sakku Devi, Jaipur vs. Incometax Officer 7(2), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 447/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Allan Sameul Chandekar, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2132/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2132/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Allan Sameul Chandekar बिधम/ Ito, Ward-1 Sai Arcade Chs Ltd, 503, Plot No.2 & 2A, Sector 17 Vs. Near Ghodke Hospital, Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel-410206. New Panvel East, Navi Mumbai-410206. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afppc0597J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv G. Brahme/Shri Jayant Bhatt Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.04.2023 For The Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Inter-Alia Has Raised The Legal Issue Of Non-Issuance Of Mandatory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Before Framing The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv G. Brahme/Shri JayantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

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. Since the facts on record

Anirudh Keshav Dubey, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Anirudh Keshav Dubey, I.T.O., Flat No. 602, Leela Tower, Near Daman Vs. Vatsav Park, Rofel College, Namdha Road, Vapi- 396191 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aejpd 7924 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 69A

assessee escaped assessment. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27/03/2018 was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite service of notice under section 148 and other number of various notices, neither the assessee filed any response nor filed return of income in response to notice ... grounds of appeal. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice on two occasions by e-mail. Notice for hearing fixed on 25.10.2023 was sent and served through e-mail as well as RPAD. Considering such