“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

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

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4002/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

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

Jaykant Uttamchand Shah, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 276/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

postal authority with the remark, which is not readable. The notice was sent as per address mentioned on Form-36. Despite service of notice on more than two occasions, we left no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and hearing the submissions ... more than 5 ½ years is explained. Neither the assessee nor his representative came forward to attend the hearing before the Tribunal, despite the service of notice at the address provided in Form-36. Thus, we do not find any justifiable reason of such a long delay, therefore, application for condonation

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2 Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

ITA 428/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA and Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 244A

facie the appeal is not admissible stating that the intimation/notice of demand is sent online and therefore there can be no delay in service of notice of demand as claimed by the Assessee without appreciating that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had extended the period of limitation ... facie the appeal is not admissible stating that the intimation/notice of demand is sent online and therefore there can be no delay in service of notice of demand as claimed by the Assessee without appreciating that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had extended the period of limitation

Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navasari

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

ITA 263/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.263/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry Income Tax Officer, 130, Kumbhar Faliya, Via Ward-5, Navsari Vs Satem, Tal: Navsari, Dist. Navsari-396466 Pan No: Ammpm 4411 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sujesh C Suratwala, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.09.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Suresshbhai S Mistry “1. The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Nfac/Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Addition To The Total Income Of The Assessee Which Is Primarily Agriculture Inn Nature & In Fact Exempted To Tax

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

case of assessee under section 147, subsequently notice under section 148 issued upon assessee on 28.03.2017. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite service of notice assessee has not filed his return of income. Thereafter, Assessing Officer served various notices for seeking details, however, no response done by assessee in order

Delite Buildwell Private Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1749/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Delite Buildwell Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, 151-A, Club Road, Sainik Farms, Circle-7(1), New Delhi – 110 062. New Delhi. Pan: Aaecc7113K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravinder Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, New Delhi, Dated 03.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Of The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1(A) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Serving Notice Dt. 14.08.2019, 23.09.2019 & 05.11.2019. 1 (B) That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Failed To Place Any Evidence For Issuing Of Notice Dated 14.08.2019 For Fixing Date Of Hearing On 16.09.2019, Notice Dated 23.09.2019 For Fixing Date Of Hearing On 04.11.2015 & Notice Dated 05.11.2019 For Fixing Date Of Hearing On 02.12.2019. No Such Alleged Notices Were Received By Appellant Company At Registered Address As Mentioned In Form No. 35 Of Appeal. 1(C ) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Totally Ignored The Fact That In Form 35 There Is A Specific Column Wherein Mentioned That “Whether Notices / Communication May Be Sent On Email”. The Appellant Company Has Stated “No”. Thus The Cit(A) Has Ignored Specific Request Of The Appellant Which Is Duly Provided As Per Provisions Of Income Tax Act / Rules In Form No. 35. 1(D) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Sent Any Notice On Email Duly Stated In Form No. 35 As Vasudevinfrastructure@Qamil.Com Duly Verified By The Appellant Company From The Email Records. Thus The Passing Of Exparte Order Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250

Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that when despite due service of notice through e- mail, the assessee was not responding, the ld. CIT(A) was compelled to adjudicate the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. However

Jindal Infosolutions Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5979/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Jindal Infosolutions Ltd. Dcit 2Nd Floor, Jindal Centre, Vs Circle -13 (1) Plot No.2, Sector-32, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Pan No.Aaccn7616C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40Section 41(1)

authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the first appellate authority has framed the appellate order exparte. The facts relating to the service of notice culminating into the appellate order can be understood from the contents of the affidavit on record which reads as under :- “Affidavit of Mr. Sarat Kishore

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 36/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 154Section 194J

WARD 4(3), JAIPUR 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the Ground No. 1 which relates to non-service of notice issued u/s 148. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) went wrong in confirming the order of assessing officer. The contract receipts considered u/s 194J ... other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also filed the documents with regard to service of notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee. 3.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted from

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1)Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Sms Shivnath Infrasstructure Pvt Ltd., Durg, Durg(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

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

M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Durg(Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

Shri Sumit Gahlot, Bhilwara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhilwara

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

ITA 176/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad176/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Vs Shri Sumit Gahlot, The Ito House No.22, Ganesh Ward-1, Colony, Gulpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bqapg9853L

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 28(1)Section 44ASection 68Section 80C

offered the income u/s 44AD of the Act on presumptive basis. The case of the assessee selected for scrutiny under CASS followed by service of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Learned Assessing Officer (for short ‘’Ld. AO’’) carried the necessary enquiry about the income shown

Noble Educational Society, Bhilwara vs. ITO (Exemtion), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 168/JODH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad168/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2008-09) Vs Noble Educational Society, The Ito Kuwada Road Behind Sophia (Exemption), School, Suwana Road, Ajmer Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn5198G

Section 10(23)Section 12ASection 148Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

Thus, it is clear that the appeal has not been presented within 30 days from the date of service of notice of demand. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay dated 04-05-2016 stating as under:- ‘’Most respectfully, the petitioner submis as under:- 4 NOBLE EDUCATIONAL

Vijay Naginbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Vijay Naginbhai Patel, I.T.O., 52, Hari Har Society, Katargam Main Ward 3(2)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395004. Surat. Pan No. Abrpp 3832 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 50C

application for condonation of delay is filed on record nor the assessee has come forward to explain such cause of delay despite service of notice. The present appeal is filed in 2019 and more than 4 years have passed, the 5 Vijay Naginbhai Patel Vs ITO assessee has not bothered

Smt. Anju Rajpurohit, Pali vs. AO, NFAC, Delhi / ITO, Ward-1, Pali

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

ITA 181/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad181/Jodh/2022 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) Smt. Anju Rajpurohit Vs The Ito 2-A-33, New Housing Board, Ward-1, Pali, Pali-306 401 Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Agzpr 6477 R

Section 148

lower authorities. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities praying that in spite of service of notices, the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities to square up the case. 2.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad vs. Keshav Medichem P.Ltd, Faridabad

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

ITA 154/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 14Section 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, reassess or recompute the escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe

Shri. Ajit Singh S/O Shri. Ram Chand, Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 109/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

need to appreciate the genuine hardship of the appellants in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), being caused due to non-service of notices issued by the CIT(A) on the email and mobile of previous counsel, may be due to technical irregularities in updating the system

Rahul Shukla, Durg vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 258/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.258/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rahul Shukla C/O. Rakesh Enterprises, G.E. Road, Kumhari, Durg-491 001 Pan : Dkips6951K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Nfac, Delhi ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee at the very outset submitted that as the impugned assessment had been framed by the A.O without carrying out any service of notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. On a specific query by the Bench as to whether ... claim of the Ld. AR that as the impugned assessment had been framed by the A.O de-hors any service of notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the assessment on the said count itself was liable to be struck down. 9. Apropos the merits of the addition made

Shri Chetankumar Pragjibhai Rabadiya, Morbi vs. ITO Ward 1, Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un- admitted

ITA 12/RJT/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Chetankumar Pragjibhai Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Rabadiya Morbi. 115-Umiya Plot Vistar A/P : S. Sanala, Morbi. Pan : Alupr 8308 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 29.11.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing None Came Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Service Of Notice Nor Any Application Seeking Adjournment Was Filed Before Us. Even In The Past When The Appeal Was Listed For Hearing On Four Occasions, Twice An Application Seeking Adjournment Was Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee By His 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR

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

dated 29.11.2019 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At the time of hearing none came present on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice nor any application seeking adjournment was filed before us. Even in the past when the appeal was listed for hearing on four occasions, twice

Shri Piyush Vinodrai Parekh, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, International Taxation, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 137/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 57

time of hearing of this appeal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even in all the previous hearings, in spite of service of notices to the assessee, this clearly shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal with proper materials. Therefore with the assistance

Sheetal Kaushal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 5(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 417/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Nisha Lahoti, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69

under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act as the assessee could not appear before the AO for want of service of notices. The AO has made the addition on account of unexplained investment in the property of Rs. 35,20,000/- while passing the ex-parte order which ... mail which were not come to the notice of the assessee as she was not aware about the mode of service of notices. He has further submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without deciding the same

Mahamadali Adam Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Offocer, Ward 1(2), Bharuch

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

ITA 90/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mahamadali Adam Patel Income Tax Officer, Apana Nagar Society, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Vs At P.O. Vagara, Bharuch-392001 Pan No: Adxpp 0699 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Krutarth K Desai, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 03.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 27.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)/ Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Appellant Was Hold The Status Of Agriculturist, During The Year Under Consideration I.E. Ay 2017-18. The Entire Money Received Was The Income From Agriculture Activities Which Are Wholly Exempt Mahamadali Adam Patel From Taxation Purview. Hence The Appellant Is Not Liable To Pay Any Tax On This Income Addition Made By The Authority & Hence This Appeal. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Appreciating The Factual Matrix Of The Case & Therefore The Addition Deserves To Be Deleted.

Section 144Section 254(1)

submits that assessee has assigned his tax case to a tax consultant, who has given his mobile number and e-mail ID for service of notices. Thus, the fact of dismissal of appeal not came to the knowledge of assessee directly, nor it was communicated