“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

Chequer Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-29, Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 250

Court.” 3. Amongst other issues on merits, the assessee has raised ground about disposal of appeal by the learned CIT(A) without sufficient service of notice and opportunity of hearing. 4. Report is submitted by the learned DR on the basis of facts reported by the learned CIT(A), which ... mail, but Bench is of view that where an option is sought from an assessee in form no. 35, as to mode of service of notice and if assessee prefers to opt for physical notice only, then electronic notice issued cannot be considered to be due issuance and service

Chequer Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-29, Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 250

Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

reasons recorded, copies of sanction of Additional CIT, copies of orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 and copy of the report for service of notice by affixture have been furnished to the assessee on 17.05.2016. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). After considering the submissions ... assessee before passing of the order as mandated by section 148(1) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. (B) The alleged service of notice by affixture is not in conformity with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 read with order V of the code

Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

M/S Jaisu Dredging & Shipping Ltd., Kandla vs. The Joint Commr. Income Tax, Gandhidham Range, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeals filed by the above Assessees are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 286/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144

further seen that no authorization is given by the assessee to any Counsel to represent the above appeals. In spite of service of notice through department by way “Affixture” on 18.05.2023, None appeared on behalf of the assessee. This clearly shows that the assessees are not interested in pursuing

M/S Jaisu Shipping Company Private Ltd., Adipur-Kutch vs. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeals filed by the above Assessees are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 285/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144

Shri Jaswinder Singh, Tarn Taran vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (2), Amritsar

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

ITA 56/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 250

mentioned the factum of the issue of notices to the assessee but he has not mentioned the factum of service of notice upon the assessee which makes it apparently clear that the appellant assessee has not been served the notices issued. Meaning thereby that adequate opportunity of being heard

Raju Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed ‘’

ITA 411/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 69C

confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is perverse in law on account of lack of jurisdiction of AO in absence of service of notice u/s 148 dated 26-03- 2019 on the appellant. 3 SMT. RAJU DEVI SAINI, VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR 2. That

Farah Naaz & Others (L/H of Ghulam Nezami), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1889/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Bhatt, CA

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the issue and service of notice under section 148 dated 28-03-2016 to be valid, even though the same was issued in the name of a deceased person and was returned ... facts by upholding the continuation of proceedings under Section 147 in the name of legal heirs, in absence of a valid service of notice under section 148 within the limitation period. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred

Vishwa Shanti Madhuban Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. CIT (Exemp.), New Delhi

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

ITA 6973/DEL/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Verma

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

assessee. When the notice was issued fixing the date of hearing on 19.09.2022 none appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of on hearing the ld. DR. 3. The ld. DR submits that exemption under section

DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Wahid Sandhar Sugars Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6508/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Verma

Section 10(1)Section 2Section 41(1)

investments yielding non taxable income have to be considered and not all investments as taken by the AO.” 3. In spite of service of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal by hearing the ld. DR. 4. Ground No. 1 of grounds

DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Unitech Realty Project Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6941/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6940 & 6941/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 बनाम Dcit Arihant Unitech Realty Project Circle 3(1) Vs. Ltd. New Delhi. Basement & Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafca6188H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 37(1)Section 46A

raised one more ground in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.2,50,407/- on account of un-reconciled differences. In spite of service of notice on the assessee none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved. Therefore, we dispose of these appeals by hearing

DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Unitech Realty Project Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6940/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Section 37(1)Section 46A

Ravi Sherwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 64/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ravi Sherwani H-26, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Azbps6703J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

rather, without any objection, had voluntarily participated in such proceedings, could not seek annulment of the assessment proceedings on the ground of non-service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Ld. D.R in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the 11 Ravi Sherwani

5Th Element Digital Media Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-9(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 624/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

details sought from the lenders vide notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. The Ward Inspector at the time of service of notice under section 133(6) of the Act found that the lenders were not available at the given address and some other concerns were running

Sultan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 29/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 33-B merely requires that an opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee and the stringent requirement of service of notice under Section 34 cannot, therefore, be applied to a proceeding under Section 33-B." (Page 827-828). [Note: Section 33-B and Section

Sh. Arashpreet Singh. S/O.Late.Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer as mentioned that notices were served ... further noticeable from the assessment order that the appellant has participated in the assessment proceedings without raising any objection about service of notice, therefore section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly