“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

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 388/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

Vama Infra, Surat vs. Dy.CIT Cricle-2(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 406/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.406/Srt/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vama Infra Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor Veronaa Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Aayakar Vs Residency, Harikrishna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Campus Vraj Chowk, Surat- 395001 395001 Pan : Aakfv 3593 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

keeping in view the principle of natural justice, We, instead of going into controversy, whether the assessee defaulted in attending the proceedings despite service of notice or not, before the NFAC/ld.CIT(A). We find that the order of the NFAC/ld.CIT(A) is not in accordance with mandate of section

Late Smt Sushila Bisarya, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

ITA 89/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263

CONSEQUENTLY. THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER Page 10 of 18 Smt. Sushila Bisarya Page 11 of 18 SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 1961 OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE. 26. In the opinion of this Court the issuance of a notice under Section ... MADRAS HIGH COURTI. 35. This Court is of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Consequently, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case. IN RAJINDER

Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 359/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, 41-42, Vishnu Nagar Society – 1, Ward-3(2)(5), Ankur Char Rasta, A. K. Road, Surat Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aospb9227J (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

mandatory. It has been contended by ld DR that assessee attended the assessment proceedings regularly and never objected regarding issue and service of notice u/s143(2) so the default can be treated as procedural irregularity u/s 292BB of the Act. As per the provision of section 292BB where an assessee ... upon him in an improper manner respectively. Therefore, section 292BB talks about only the situation where the assessee raises the issue of non-service of notice and still co-operates with the Department. The issuance of statutory notice cannot be dispensed with by the co-operation of the assessee. Since

Shri Maheshbhai M.Pandya, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.388/Srt/2018 (Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Maheshbhai M Pandya, Income Tax Officer, 9, Dipkiran Co-Op. Hsc, Ward-6, Vapi, Vs Society, Nr.N.H.-8, Gidc, Vapi-396195 Pan No. Afupp 6452 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Initially this appeal was adjudicated vide order dated 20.09.2022 in ex parte proceedings as neither the assessee nor his representative appeared despite service of notice of hearing of appeal. However, the order dated 20.09.2022 was re-called in assessee’s Miscellaneous Application (MA) No.17/SRT/2023, vide order dated 26.06.2023. Thus, this

Manak Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above

ITA 1362/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1362/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Manak Garg, Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Saurav Rohatgi & Vs. Ward : 36 (3) Associates, G-2/7, Ganga Triveni Apartments, New Delhi. Sector : 9, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan No. Aespg0394M अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 292BSection 46A

dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 3 is in respect of validity of the assessment order as it was passed without service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) within the statutory time limit. Placing reliance on the decision ... issued within the time specified under the Act the assessee is precluded from raising this ground of non-service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in view of the provisions of section 292BB, I find force in the contention. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Asha Nagpal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 200/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. D. M. Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

From the paragraph 6.2, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not examined the Assessment Order regarding issue and service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act from the records except relying on the first paragraph of the Assessment Order. Hence, we hereby set aside the issue ... file of the ld. CIT(A) to factually examine the issue of service of notice u/s 143(2) from the assessment records and also to consider the additional evidences filed by the assessee in 2 Asha Nagpal relation to provisions of Rule 46A and adjudicate the issue de novo

Kshirsagar Constructions Co Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1247/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 1247/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2010-11) Kshir Sagar Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. C-20, Bharat Nagar, Grant Road, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaack1671N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-5 (2)(1), Mumbai. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Himanshi Jain "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 14.03.2023, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Reveals That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of Assessee In-Limine For Non-Prosecution. The Cit(A) In Para-5.1 Of The Impugned Order Has Tabulated The Dates Fixed For Hearing Of The Appeal, The Dates Of Issue Of Notice & The Remarks Indicating That On None Of The Dates The Assessee Responded To The Notices Issued By The Cit(A). The Table Shows That The Cit(A) Had Fixed The Appeal For Hearing On Four Occasions & Had Issued Notices

For Appellant: Ms. Himanshi JainFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR

whether the notices issued by the CIT(A) were served on the assessee. It is not merely issuance of notice but the service of notice which is necessary for the assessee to know about the proceedings. 3. Be that as it may, the CIT(A) was duty bound to decide

M/S. Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Bhilwara

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 411/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Income Tax Department on 11.07.2023. Ld. DR submitted the copy of notice showing the service. Ld. DR also submitted his report confirming the service of notice on the assessee. We have verified that notice has been duly served. We have already mentioned that on 08th August, 2017, none appeared

Vrk Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Noida

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2295/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 145(3)Section 68

view of the failure of the appellant to discharge its obligation in law despite repeated opportunities granted to it and despite the service of notice u/s. 251(2) r./w. 251(1 )(a) of I.T. Act, 1961 the income of the appellant is enhanced

Sahid Khan, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1859/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148

That the Id CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law in confirming the assessment made by the Id AO without service of notice u/s 148 . 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A), NFAC, 2 Delhi has erred in dismissing the appeal

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6220/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chowdhary

Section 147Section 250Section 4

assessee raised such contention before the Assessing Officer and also participated in the assessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the ground of non service of notice and taxed the proceeds out of sale of land as the business income. In the appeal, CIT (Appeals) held that the assessment was invalid since ... 405/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. M/s. SAM Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., ND to pass the order of assessment discarding the assessee's objection of non service of notice and in which he held that income generated from the sale of land was a business income. When such order was set aside

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6219/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chowdhary

Section 147Section 250Section 4

Shrinath Products, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

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

ITA 51/JODH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair. JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

facts, information and the series of non compliances of notices by the assesee and called for the A.O report on the service of notices dealt at Page 3 Para 5 of the CIT(A) order read as under: 5. The appellant has contested the levy of penalty ... assessee. In this regard, the AO was requested vide this office letter No.831 dated 29.12.2017 to send specific report on the service of notices during the assessment proceedings and during the penalty proceedings u/s Shrinath Products, Udaipur. 271(1)(b) of the Act. In response to the same

Shri Chintan Kanjibhai Katariya, Anjar-Kutch vs. The ITO Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 54/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

additions with the following observations:- “5. In view of above, it is seen that there is not response from the assessee despite service of notice through AO. Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. I find support from the following decisions:- (i) In the case

Smt. Pushpa Chhajer, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding validity of service of notice u/s 148 on husband of assessee. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding ... allowed on this ground." In light of above the notice issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and against the provisions of law. Regarding service of notice n] It is further submitted that the husband of assessee Shri Mahendra Chajjer was not authorized for appearing the assessment proceeding or obtaining

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt Ltd, Bandra East Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 270/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

present M.A. was called for hearing neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed, despite the service of notice of hearing. Therefore, in view of the above, we proceed to dispose off the present M.A. ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing

Shri Gaushala Bhawan Charitable Trust, Mansa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 81/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

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

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

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 aboutthe service of notice. Both

Shri Gaushala Bhawan Charitable Trust, Mansa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 80/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

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

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Shri Har Har Mahadev Sewa Mandal, Mansa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 79/ASR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Aug 2023AY 2022-23

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

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)