“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

Shri Fayaz Ahmed Kadla, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 113/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 144

argued that the AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act based on presumptions without appreciate the nature of business and service of notice. The CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 19,30,091/- by ex parte order without appreciating the facts that the state

Smt. Parminder Kaur Brar, Kotkapura vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

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

ITA 72/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263oSection 54

valid notice is necessary to invest the ITO with jurisdiction to take proceedings under the section. Therefore, so far as the service of notice under section 282 is concerned, it is mandatory, and it has to be in the manner provide under the Act and no other way. Secondly, notice

Shri Kiranjit Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4(3), Amritsar

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

ITA 723/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.723/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250(6)

such the assessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147 were vitiated. 3. That the assessment order deserves to be quashed as there is no valid service of notice u/s 148 OTHER GROUNDS 4. That the Ld. C.l.T (A) has erred in recording wrong facts in respect of purchase of land. I.T.A. No.723/Asr/2019 ... reassessment proceedings is as per law. I.T.A. No.723/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case service of notice u/s 148 by affixture is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be cancelled. 8. That in the facts and circumstances

Suhir Kumar Goyal, Shamli vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Shamli

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

ITA 1467/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Sudhir Kumar Goyal, Vs Ito, M/S. Duli Chand Salek Chand, Ward-1(5), New Mandi, Shamli, Shamli. Uttar Pradesh-247776. Pan-Agnpg1585D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vibhu Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 234BSection 69

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 2. That the CIT(A) erred

Satyaveer Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 927/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 271(1)(c)

inevitably the said notice could never have been served upon him. Consequently, the jurisdictional requirement under 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 ... SUPRA) AND ALAMELU x VEERAPPAN (SUPRA). \ 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

Satyaveer Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7303/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 271(1)(c)

Krishan Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO Ward 2, Sonepat

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

ITA 1068/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Samyak Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 27ISection 69A

assessee.” 3. The Assessment Order has been passed u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee pleaded that no proper service of notice was effected before completion of the assessment. The assessee has also failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) which led to dismissal

Psa Nitrogen Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Devesh K. Malan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

other reached the person upon whom it was to be served was not sufficient to comply with a requirement of proper service of notice.” B. BECAUSE the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the intention of the Legislature which is to prevent or check evasion

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for ground no

ITA 2623/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumargardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. Gh-1, Sector-46, Noida, Central Circle-7, Up-201301 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcg5568K Dcit, Vs. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-7, Plot No. Gh-1, Sector-46, Noida, New Delhi Up-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcg5568K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

When the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorized representative (AR) appeared despite repeated service of notice. Therefore, we find it appropriate to adjudicate the appeal ex parte qua assessee after hearing the arguments of the ld CIT DR. 5. From the memo of the ground

M/S. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for ground no

ITA 2592/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

Sharda Silicate & Chemical Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

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 service of notice through the learned Departmental Representative (“learned D.R.”). In this regard, the service report dated 08/05/2023 was also placed on record by the learned D.R. Therefore

Sanjaykumar Dhirubhai Hirpara, Khambha vs. AO, ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 260/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapura Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147

case is listed for hearing 5th time today, even in the previous hearings None appeared on behalf of the assessee, in spite of service of notices to the assessee. Neither the assessee nor his Authorized Representative, C.A. Shri Janak Tarapara appeared for the hearing. The Ld. D.R. Mr. B.D. Gupta ... which the Tribunal was pleased to remand the proceedings before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that despite service of notices, before CIT(A) no one appeared on behalf of the assesses. No written response was also made. Despite this, the Tribunal placed the matter back before

Shri Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Ramchandra Vs. International Tax Dhopeshwarkar, 404/11J Ward 2(1)(1) Neelam Nagar Chs, Room No. 1724, 17Th Phase Ii, Gavan Pada, Floor, Air India Building, Mulund (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400081 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afrpd9868F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, Dated 15.01.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, Is Bad In Law On Various Grounds Apart From Being Passed In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Alleged Ground Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Giving Any Opportunity & Without Appreciating The Fact There Is Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Factually Incorrect. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Dealing With The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Before Him Despite Receiving The Remand Report From The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 69A

however, the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the submission of the assessee stating that assessee has not provided any proof of service of notice and assessment order on 29.01.2020. In this regard, we have perused the copy of form 35 filed by the assesse before

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 5254/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle 27(1), Versus Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi. 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu0237C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT(DR)

Section 14A

When the appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case despite service of notice of hearing, as evidenced by postal acknowledgement kept on record. In view 2 of the aforesaid, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua assessee

Sumitra Devi Mehta, Wife & L/H of Late Shri Dina Nath Mehta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Chaursia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

ISSUED TO A CORRECT PERSON AND NOT TO A DEAD PERSON. CONSEQUENTLY. THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 1961 OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE. xxxxx 26. In the opinion of this Court the issuance of a notice under Section ... MADRAS HIGH COURT1. 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 I.T.A No.101/Del/2023

ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashokkumar Murajmal Raimalani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3569/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3569/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer -24(1)(2), Room No.605, Piramal Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Lane,Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Ashokkumar Murajmal Raimalani, 2Nd Floor, 108, Zaveri Bazar, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058. Pan: Aaapr-8617-A .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam –Cit Dr ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Shah सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam –CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Shah

Section 148Section 292B

notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer through E-mail it was not an approved method of service of notice. He pointed that the provisions of section 151A were inserted w.e.f. 01/11/2020 in reference of the faceless assessment, whereby service of notice on registered ... section 282 of the Act as amended by Finance (No.2) Act 2009 w.e.f. 01/10/2009, ( as relevant to the assessment year under appeal). “Service of notice generally 282. (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section

Ujjwal Microfinance Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3877/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute the escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe

Ss Wines, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 8062/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: None

Section 144

case was called for assessee neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed despite due service of notice in compliance on which Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, CA & his associates Advocate appeared during earlier hearings. On perusal of the appeal record we find

Jyotsnaben N Rami, Surat vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 299/SRT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Smt. Jyotsnaben N. Rami, I.T.O., D-1 L H Road, Panchsutra Garden Ward-3(3)(1) Vs. Apartment, Opp.-Bombay Market, Surat. Surat-395006 (Gujarat) Pan No. Acapr 0313 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69A

Officer issued summon under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for appearance of assessee on 04/11/2010. Despite service of notice, the assessee not attended the hearing. The assessee furnished month wise details of sale and purchase and sales during April to June and July

Basant Gupta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 63/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

parties did not reply to the notices allegedly served through Circle Inspector as the address of those parties were incorrect. The details of service of notices to the respective parties are reproduced herein below :- S.No Name of Party Fate of notice Mode 1. Unique Jewellers Served Postal Authorities 2. China