“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

Key Board Welfare Foundation Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 287 & 286/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2023-24 Key Board Welfare Foundation Society Plot No. 278, Sector No. 7, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADAK 2400 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing in spite of service of notice for hearing of the appeal on 23-08-2017. Consequently the Bench is left with no alternative but to decide the appeal on merits

Rajasthan Avashan Mandal Karmachari Vikas Samiti, Mansarovar Jaipur vs. CIT Exemtion, Jaipur

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

ITA 257/JPR/2023[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2023-2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 257/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2023-24 Rajasthan Avashan Mandal Karamachari Vikash Samiti Arawali Marg Sector 8, Arawali Marg, Sector 8 Mansarovar, Jaipur cuke Vs. CIT Exemption Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATR 9142 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ashok Kanodia (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 12A

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT (Exemption) was not justified while passing the order without ensuing service of notice. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT (Exemption) was not justified while passing the order without considering the contents filed in from 10AB ... passed. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT (Exemption) was not justified while passing the order without ensuring the service of notice. Our Submissions: it is submitted that CIT Exemption passed the order without ensuring the service of notice which is clear from the fact that

ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi vs. Karsan Bhi Khimabhai Patel, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2016/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Shri Karsan Bhai Khimabhai Central Circle-17, Patel, 8A/8, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005. Pan-Antpp5589K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023 Order

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

seen that the present appeal was filed on 30.12.2021 by hand. The impugned order was passed on 16.09.2021. It is stated that service of notice was affected on 08.10.2021. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. Facts

Rakyan'S Fine Jewellery (Formally Known As M/S. Varun Gems), New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 33, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7178/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargrakyan’S Fine Jewellery (Formerly Vs. Jcit, Known As M/S. Varun Gems, Range-33, M-31, M Block Main Market, New Delhi Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaafv2804P

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

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

Year 2007-08. 4. On the other hand the ld Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not raise any objection regarding non service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act during assessment proceedings. Therefore, provision of section 292BB is applicable in favour of the Revenue and thus, legal ... applied to the present case of AY 2007-08. 6. Since the ld CIT(A) in para 4.1.3 noted the fact of non-service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on the assessee and even if the assessee did not raise any objection to non-service of notice

Gajender Singh Jadon, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-57(5), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6539/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

found from the assessment order that since the case was time barring on 31st January 2014, the A.O. opted for substitute service of notice by way of affixture and a notice dated 14/01/2014 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act claimed to be served by way of affixture through Inspector/Notice ... 24/01/2014 by way of affixture through Inspector /Notice Server. The same was also uncomplied with.” Thus, we have to examine as to whether service of notice by way of affixture was proper in terms of order V, Rule 17 to 20 of the CPC. As per provisions of Section

Vijaya Bank, Belagavi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward - 1, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 209/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.207 To 209/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2014-15 Vijaya Bank, Vs. Ito, Tds, Ward-1, Tilakwadi Branch, Belagavi, Belagavi. Karnataka – 590001. Pan : Aaacv4791J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : P.G. G. & Co. Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Belagavi [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 14.03.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.207/Pan/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: P.G. G. & CoFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 10Section 154Section 201Section 201(1)

before us in the present appeal. 8. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the matter after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and perusing the material on record

Vijaya Bank, Belagavi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward - 1, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 208/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: P.G. G. & CoFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 10Section 154Section 201Section 201(1)

Vijaya Bank, Belagavi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward - 1, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 207/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: P.G. G. & CoFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 10Section 154Section 201Section 201(1)

M/S. Iol Foundation, Ludhiana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandugarh

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

ITA 209/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

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

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

that the person that purported to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him had in fact exercised that jurisdiction with issue of notice and service of notice. The said test has not been fully completed. We should not turn a blind eye about the service of notice. Both

Shri Dharminder Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4 (1), Amritsar

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

ITA 127/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2Section 69

appellate stage without support of documentary evidence to substantiate the facts regarding the issue of notice u/s 148 without jurisdiction, non-service of notice u/s 148, reasons based on borrowed information and that AO has initiated the proceedings without application of mind in absence of perusal of the assessment order

Anil Kumar Kansal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO), Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1358/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Anil Kumar Kansal, Vs Ito, C/O-Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Ward-1(1), 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. Pan-Adipk0246R Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2023

Section 148

appellant has challenged the order contending that proper opportunity of being heard was not given to the appellant and there is no valid service of notice u/s 148. According to the appellant reason to believe have not been supplied to the appellant thus according to him the proceedings ... response to notice u/s 148 and also actively participated in the proceedings thereafter, by its conduct, abandoned the right to claim non service of notice u/s 148 thus the irregularity, if at all, got cured by subsequent conduct of the assessee. Reliance is placed on Yogesh Kumar & Sons

Scorpio Iron Ltd, Panaji vs. JCIT, Range - 1, Panaji

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

ITA 83/PAN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Scorpio Iron Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, 505 A, Dempo Trade Center, Panaji, Goa. Patto, Panaji, Goa-403 001. Pan: Aahcs 8190 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Badrinath Yamaji Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji, (For Short, ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 11.09.2020 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Badrinath Yamaji

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji, (for short, ‘CIT(A)’), dated 11.09.2020 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. Despite service of notices on various dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment is filed before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

much to 4. Learned Departmental Representative did not have much to 4. Learned Departmental Representative did not have much to say on the service of notice of this hearing on the actual n the service of notice of this hearing on the actual n the service of notice of this

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

Sunil Singhal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 69A

That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing, ex-parte, the appeal of the appellant without proper/ effective service of notice of hearing on the appellant, and proceeding on presumed service by purportedly sending the notice through email. Without Prejudice 4. That the CIT(A) erred

Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Souhard Sahakari Ny, Sunadholi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

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

ITA 63/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Gokak. Sunadholi, Tal – Gokak, Dist. Belagavi, Karnataka. Pan: Aacas 9316 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sateesh Nadagouda, Ca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (For Short, ‘Nfac’), Dated 14.12.2021 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Sateesh Nadagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, ‘NFAC’), dated 14.12.2021 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. Despite service of notices on various dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment is filed before the NFAC. Therefore, NFAC had dismissed

Bethany Seva Sangam, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 72/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.72/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bethany Seva Sangam C/O. Bethany College Of Nursing, Borsi, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aaaab0776D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 272ASection 272A(2)(e)

duly served to the appellant requiring it to file return of income within thirty days from the service of notice. However, the return of income was not filed within the stipulated period of thirty days and the appellant filed return of income in ITR-5 through e-filing

Ramswaroop Das Niranjanlal Charitable Trust, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 242/RPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 242/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ramswaroop Das Niranjanlal Charitable Trust Vandana Bhawan, M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaatr2301K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the IT Act with Demand Notice, which was null and void as the service of notice u/s 143(2) was after 30.09.2011. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in upholding the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. AO by assuming ... jurisdiction due to invalid service of notice renders no jurisdiction to assess the total income. 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in not accepting that the trust has carried on charitable activities. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in upholding the Assessment Order though the reasons for selection

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 5538/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri S. B. Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, [CIT] - D. R

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports (2010) 324 ITR 95. • With respect to non-service of notice u/s 133(6) upon 5 parties, assessee submitted that 1 party had submitted its response and notice was thus in fact served upon

Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 394/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.394 & 388/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, 1, Brahamin Faliya, Ward-1(4), Vs Ladeshwar, Bharuch Nr. Swaminarayan Temple, Bharuch-392011 Pan No: Ahnps 2989 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

reasonable opportunity, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by taking view that no proper compliance was made by assessee despite service of notice of hearing issued. 3. On the other hand, learned departmental representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue submits that though the assessee