“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

Kalpana Jhala, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

under:- 5.2 In this regard, reference is made to the section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that deals with service of notices generally and it reads as under. 282. (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this ... income-tax authority" Thus as per section 282 of the Income Tax Act.1961 read with Rule 127 of the - Income Tax Rules, 1961, service of notice through email on the email address at available in return of income or last income tax return is a valid service On going through

Tinku Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstance of the case learned CIT appeal was not justified while confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without ensuring the service of notice which were never received by the appellant. 3. Under the facts and circumstance of the case learned CIT appeal not justified while confirming

Rasiklal Bavchandbhai Akbari, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 44/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rasiklal Bavchandbhai Akbari, I.T.O., 307, Santkrupa Apartment, Ward-3(3)(4), Vs. Matru Shakti Road, Kapodara Surat. Char Rasta, Surat, Gujarat- 395006. Pan No. Agmpa 6060 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

name of assessee by error of mentioning PAN of assessee. No such confirmation was filed by the assessee from Radhika Builders despite service of notice under section 133(6). On considering such fact, the issue is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for a limited purpose to verify

ACIT, Circle-3(2), Surat vs. M/S. Rajlaxmi Infra, Surat

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

above parties, ledger account showing payments made on different occasions. Moreover, notice under section 133(6) was duly served on the parties and service of notice clearly established that existence of suppliers. The bills contained CST number, address and contract number. Now if suppliers did not submit reply in response

DCIT, CC-06, New Delhi vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 79/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) & Put

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

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, 8 ITA No.79/Del./2022 reassess or recompute the escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons

Willard India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8546/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)

Delhi, dated 27.04.2017 for assessment year 2012-13 in sustaining the disallowance of loss on sale of shares. 2. In spite of service of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeal is disposed of on hearing the ld. DR. 3. The assessee company filed its return

Vital Wires Consulting P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8264/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 194J

difference in the financial year of booking of expenses and/or deduction of TDS and double booking of TDS customers. 2. In spite of service of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal is disposed of on hearing the ld. DR. 3. While completing the assessment the Assessing

M/S Gca Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-1, Bathinda

ITA 287/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

Bhatinda has completed the affixture on dated 15/02/2023, under V Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) related service of notice of ITAT-Amritsar Benchfor intimation of hearing on dated 23/02/2023. in view of the above and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose

Hylink Overseas Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2819/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Section 115BSection 68

matter was first listed for hearing on 01/06/2022. From the first date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice at the address given by the assessee in Form No. 36. Hence we deem it fit and appropriate to dispose of this appeal on hearing

Anshu Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: 30.08.2019. But No Reply Was Filed By The Assessee On The Said Date Of Hearing. Thereafter, One More Opportunity Was Granted To The Assessee Vide This Office Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 01.10.2019 To File Reply On 11.10.2019, But Again No Compliance Was Made By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

have ignored the reasonable cause that year 2019 was the first year of switching to digital mode of serving from physical service of notice, and the small assessees can not be expected to be aware with such innovations in the short period. 3. Ld. CIT and AO have not appreciated

Zile Singh Kashyap, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Uszile Singh Kashyap Vs. Ito C/O. Gourav Sachdeva & Ward – 47(1) Co. Ca, A-8, Kewal Park New Delhi Extn., South Extn., New Delhi-110 033 Pan No. Ahfpk 1369 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.04.2023

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

raised the following grounds: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. erred in imposing penalty without service of notice to assessee. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. erred in imposing penalty since in the quantum order charge on penalty ... hearing in the past. On the present date of hearing also there was no appearance from the side of assessee despite the service of notice by RPAD. The case file further reveals that notices issued for hearing through RPAD were returned undelivered with the remark ‘no such person’. In such

Amrish Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3924/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 144Section 147Section 48Section 54F

rejecting the grounds of the appellant that the AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 without any legal and valid mandatory service of notice us 148 of the Act and passed ex-parte order us 144 of the Act which is against the principles of natural justice, hence liable

Acpl Design Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4974/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acpl Design Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, J-103, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1), South Extension-1, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan: Aahca5958K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.05.2018 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Submitted That The Assessee Does Not Want To Press Legal Grounds No.1, 2 & 3. Therefore, The Same Are Dismissed As ‘Not Pressed. The Remaining Effective Grounds No.4 & 5 Read As Follows:- “4. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition U/S 68 Of Rs.25,73,000.00 On Account Of Unsecured Loan Made By Ao On Untenable & Illegal Grounds. Hence The Addition As Such May Be Deleted. 5. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.6,52,362.00 On Account Of Foreign Travel Expense Made By Ao On Untenable & Illegal Grounds. Hence The Addition As Such May Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

deleted.” 3. Apropos grounds No.4 and 5, the ld. AR submitted that the AO made addition on the allegation of non-service of notice issued u/s 131 of the Act to the creditors ignoring that the creditors did file response to his notices

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4009/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed despite due service of notice for the today’s hearing. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex- party qua assessee after hearing the arguments