“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

Royal Sales & Co., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.559/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Royal Sales & Co., Income Tax Officer, 504, Arihant Park, Parle Vs. Ward- 1(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Point, Surat–395007 Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr2757F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Shrinatkji Engineering, M/s. Santoshi Berrier Film India Pvt. Ltd, Febteck Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., and Radha Madhav Corporation Ltd, were received despite valid service of notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. It was further seen that in case of Sunshine Enterprise and Tinipati Flexopack Industries notices were returned unserved

Vijay Girjashankar Trivedi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(4), Kalyan

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

ITA 2361/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Girjashankar Trivedi Vs. Ito Ward 3(4) D-304, Draupaid Vihar, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Devi Chowk Shastri Nagar Murbad Road, Dombivali West Kalyan O Maharashtra – 421202 Maharashtra 421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabpt3167E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ajay Singh Date Of Hearing 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ajay Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 250

find that in the order u/s 250 of the Act passed by the ld. CIT(A), the detail of issuing any service of notices of hearing to assessee were not provided. Therefore, in the interest of justice to decide the issue in appeal on P a g e | 3 Vijay

Vimlesh Kumar Sharma, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 215/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Sharma 1, Main Road, Opp. Prakash Petrol Pump, Bankimogra, Korba (C.G.)-495447 Pan : Anops4525M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250(1)Section 282

again on 30.09.2022 no response was filed by the assessee. 3.2 The notices sent to the appellant by ITBA PORTAL, amounts to service of notice as provided u/s 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as good service. The appellant has been duly notified on various occasions by this office

Jumman Lal Yadav, Durg vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 290/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 290/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jumman Lal Yadav Deep Chowk, Kusumkasa, Balod, Durg (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Acmpy0168R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 119aSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

that a change of address was intimated to the department ignoring which notices were being sent to the old address. In these circumstances service of notice by affixture is being treated as valid and sufficient opportunity given to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In deciding so I am also

Kamla Devi Agarwal Through Legal Heir Anant Kumar Bansal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 365/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 10(38)

assessee was served upon the notice dated 10-03-2023 which does not indicate from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that service of notice was made to the assessee and for want of adequate opportunity to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee

The Malkapur Urban Co-Opt .Bank Ltd, Akola vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Alola Circle, Akola

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

ITA 334/NAG/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Malkapur Urban Co-Op. Vs. Acit, Akola Circle, Bank Ltd., Akola. K.N.D. & Associates, 502- 503, Satyam Apartment, Wardha Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aaalt0274E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Formed For The Purpose Of Banking Business. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Was Filed On 22.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,00,56,920/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this matter after hearing the ld. CIT-DR. 3 6. The first issue in ground

Shailbala Chowdary L/H Late Shri Kailashchandra Chowaday, Yavatmal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed in the terms indicated above

ITA 205/NAG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam

Section 153C

appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. 6. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 1995 days. The appellant filed

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S. Sidheshwar Coal Corporation, Indore (M.P.)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/NAG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Sidheshwar Coal Nagpur. Corporation, Dewas Naka, Lasudiya Mori, Near Agrawal Tol Kunta, Indore- 452010. Pan : Abgfs4604R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Kailsh Kanojiya Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Coal. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 29.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.41,340/-. Subsequently, The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Were Conducted In The Residential & Business

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailsh Kanojiya

Section 132Section 143(3)

material is not sine qua non. 3 6. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing the ld. CIT-DR. 7. In the first instance, we find that

U S Roofs Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2111/MUM/2023[2005-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2005-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 V. M/S.U.S.Roofs Ltd., The Ito-10(3), 115/116, Jk Chambers, Mumbai. Sec-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. [Pan: Aaacu 3633 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

According to the Ld.AR, the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing [and the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any details of service of notice] therefore Ld. AR couldn’t appear/file written submission along with documents before the Ld. NFAC. Taking into consideration, the fact that the change from

Haier Appliances India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, It & Tp Delhi 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 417/DEL/2022[2017-148]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2017-148

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92BSection 92F

Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax and others Vs. Subhash & Co. (2003) 3 SCC 454 observed as under: 12. Whether service of notice is valid or not is essentially a question of fact. In the instant case, learned Single Judge found that certain procedures were not followed while effecting ... given case, if the assessee knows about the proceedings and there is some irregularity in the service of notice, the direction for continuing proceedings cannot be faulted. It would depend upon the nature of irregularity and its effect and the question of prejudice which are to be adjudicated in each

Ametek Buildtech India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1317/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON’BLE (President), SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None

Section 133(6)Section 263

other provisions of the Act except notices dated 19.09.2017 u/s. 133(6) of the Act to sister concerns (2) of assessee. Even despite service of notice the assessee is not representing and perusing his case before this Tribunal. Therefore we are inclined to hold that the Assessing Officer accepted returned

Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Alwar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 439/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 439/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Sh. Ranjeet Singh Village Sare Khurd, Tehsil Tijara, District, Alwar cuke Vs. ACIT Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BTUPS 1352 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and ensuring service of notice in as much as the assessee being illiterate did not receive the notices issued by CIT(A). 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

Late Shri Motilal Hastimalji Bothra Through His L/H Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

When this appeal was called for hearing neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed despite service of notice. Therefore, in view of the above, we proceed to Late Shri Motilal Hastimaji Bothra Through Legal Heir Smt. Bhanwari Devi ITA no.2316/Mum./2023 dispose

ACIT, CC- 30, New Delhi vs. J H Jewellers LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/S. J H Jewellers Llp, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba Vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 Pan Aacfj 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, Ca Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 25.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Rs.11,24,76,000/- Additions Of Rs. 32,50,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case Considering That As Per The Balance Sheet Of These Companies As On 31.03.2016, The Said Fund Were Available In The Balance Sheet Of All The Four Companies Under The Head "Cash & Cash Equivalents" As On 31.03.2015 Which Are Now Reflected In Current Investment In I.E. Investment As Capital In The Appellant Firm As On31.03.2016. Further, Relying On The Submission Of The Assessee That The Said Four Companies Introduced Funds In The Ay 2008-09, The Case Of Maharaja Tie Up, Dynamic Enclave & Shivshakti Commercial Pt Ltd Were Assessed W/S 147 Of The Act For A.Y. 2008-09 Accepting The Share Capital/Share Premium.

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)

Section 68

capital contribution was made out of said redeemed amount of FDR’s to the present assessee company. 31 16. So far as non service of notice on Kolkata addresses are concerned the registered offices of all four companies were shifted from Kolkata to New Delhi on 17.12.2014and subsequent

Shri Vivekanand Shiksha Parishad, Begamganj vs. The CIT Exemption, Bhopal, Byhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/IND/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Vivekanand Shiksha Cit (Exemption), Parishad, Bhopal 69, Kabir Chouraha, बनाम/ Gandhi Bazar, Begamganj Vs. (Madhya Pradesh)

Section 12A

letter bearing DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1054290308(1) dated 11/07/2023 from the office of CIT(E) which is in response to the status of service of notices demanded by assessee. In this letter, the office of CIT(E) has confirmed that due to non-availability of e-mail address in database, the notices

A and R Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 307/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargm/S. A & R Buildmart Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., 11/8, Mandir Ward-1(1) Wali Gali, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi-110 016 Pan No. Aahca 2794 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2023

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorised representative or Counsel appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed despite due service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal ex parte qua assessee after hearing the arguments of Learned Sr. D.R. on behalf of the department

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Nagpur vs. M/S Indoworth India Limited, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 108/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

/166/2014-15- ITBA.No.10398, dated 27.07.2020, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Despite service of notice, none appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2 ITA.No.108/Nag./2020 2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds

The Sagbara Dediapada Vibhag Aadivasi Mahila Vikash Bachat and Dhiran Sahkari Mandali Limited, 2017-18 vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.472/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) The Sagbara Dediapada Vibhag Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Aadivasi Mahila Vikash Vharuch, Income Tax Office, Vs. Bachat & Dhiran Sahkari Harikunj, Station Road, Mandali Ltd. Pandorimata Bharuch-356 069 Society Nr. Court, Chikda Road, Taluka: Dediapda, Dist. Narmada-393040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadat 6688 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2023

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

aadiwashi women. 3. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm Assessing Officer's action to non-service of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act upon the assessee as per the requirement of the law. Even a service of show cause notice was upheld

Shri Chhitubhi Jagubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.224/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chhitubhai Jagubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kanbi Faliya, At & Po Kholwad, 1(2)(1), Surat, Aaykar Vs Taluka, Kamrej, Surat-394109 Bhavan, Room No.121, 1St Pan No. Brlpp 7388 D Floor, Nr. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C

aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Notice of appeal was served upon the assessee more than three occasions. On service of notice, assessee filed his written submission vide application dated 29.08.2023 and submitted that his case is covered by various decisions of Tribunal

Smt. Soni Jha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my observations above

ITA 118/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 118/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Soni Jha 11, 557, Om Shanti Nagar, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Naya Talab, Gadhiyari, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Arcpj5940M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekass S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N. C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

then the exercise for selection of a case for complete 5 Smt. Soni Jha Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur scrutiny and service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act will have to be completed on 30.06.2021. 6.1 Also, the Ld. AR submitted that as per the amendment made available ... statute by the Finance Act 2021, the time limit of service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act had been reduced to “three months” from the end of the month of the Financial Year, in which, return is filed. The Ld. AR, to fortify his aforesaid contention, had drawn