“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

M/S. Telesonic Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3140/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.3140/Del/2017, A.Y. 2008-09

Section 144Section 68

refusal. The notices were issued as the address of V.K.Sehgal & Associates, CAs, whose address was mentioned in Form 36 as the address for service of notice. Accordingly, no further notice is justified and arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the orders of Ld. Tax Authorities Below. 4. Appreciating ... same address was mentioned by the assessee in Form no. 35. However, before this Tribunal no other address than the one given for service for notice upon the Chartered Accountant is mentioned. Thus, there appears to be no irregularity or illegality in the service of notices by Ld. AO requiring

Shri Morbi Panjrapole Trust, Morbi vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 47/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

case is adjourned to 08/12/2022. Again none appeared on behalf of the assessee, so the case is adjourned to 03/01/2023 inspite of service of notice by RPAD. Though multiple grounds have been raised by the assessee, neither documents to the effect nor Paper Book was filed by the assessee

Pradeep Kumar, Jhujhunu vs. ITO Ward -2, Jhujhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the AO and sub-s. (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the AO proceeds to assess, reassess or recomputed escaped income. Sec. 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the AO that the income chargeable ... mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the AO and sub-s. (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the AO proceeds to assess, reassess or recomputed escaped income. Sec. 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the AO that the income chargeable

Rakesh Tanwar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 3406/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Rakesh Tanwar, Income Tax Officer, D-755, Adarsh Nagar, Ward-2(2), Malerna Road, Vs Faridabad, Ballabgarh Haryana Pan-Adhpt3835C Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 68

order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate the issue after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the records. We find that

Simple Singh, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1367/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Simple Singh, Vs Ito, Kartar Singh & Co., 86, Bank Street, Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut Cantt., Meerut, Meerut. Uttar Rpadesh-250001. Pan-Awmps7877F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.P.Narang, Adv. Respondent By Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.01.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

while confirming the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer without affording 1 | P a g e an opportunity to rebut the claim of non-service of notice is against the principal of law and natural justice. 3. The appellant/ assessee craves leave to take additional grounds of appeal before ... duties. Appellant choose not to comply with these legal notices without any reasonable cause/valid reasons. Thus, Ground of appeal 1 to 3 on service of notice & legality of proceedings are dismissed. Objection /explanation argued by us in appeal proceeding (i) The Id. CIT(A) passed the order and rejecting

Surender Kumar Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-60(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 638/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Prakesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 58Section 69C

legal position appears to be fairly well settled that Section 292BB of the Act talks of the drawing of a presumption of service of notice on an Assessee and is basically a rule of evidence. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (supra) in answering ... Kumar Agrawal (2012) 345 ITR 29 (All.) and pointed out that Section 292BB of the Act was a rule of evidence which validated service of notice in certain circumstances. It introduces a deeming fiction that once the Assessee appears in any proceeding or has cooperated in any enquiry relating

Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

service” it has clearly been found in section 143(2) of the Act but not in section 275 of the Act regarding service of notice has been mentioned. Therefore, the passing of penalty order is within due date is requirement of law u/s 275 of the Act and there ... despatcher to adopt either of the options. If he opts the former, he can afford to take appropriate steps for the effective service of notice upon the addressee. For this proposition, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

pages. In the first page, the ld.AO has narrated procedural aspect about the search action, issuance of notice and filing of the return, service of notice under section 143(2) etc. In the next page finding of the AO read as under: “2. The assessee is engaged in the business

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

ACIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dattatray Pandurang Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is set aside

ITA 2468/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2468/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri. Dattatray Jayantika Singh Pandurang Mhaiskar Asst. Commissioner Of Mumbai Income Tax 6(1) (1) 501, Dattashram Lane बिधम/ Mumbai No.1 Hindu Colony, Room No 504, Aaykar Vs. Dadar, Mumbai Bhavan, M.K.Road, 400014 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aatpm1257A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Rander प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar (Sr. Ar.) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.01.2021, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), 53 Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja RanderFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar (SR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 159Section 22Section 292BSection 3Section 37(1)

notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities 6 I.T.A. No. 2468/Mum/2021 Dattatray Pandurang Mhaiskar in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. Thus, in the present case

Jayesh Bhanji Shah, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2320/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vasant K. KangeFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

that he was not aware of the notices fixing the listing of the matters before the Ld. CIT(A) since there was no service of notice as stated in the impugned order at page 5 & 6. Since assessee was in the dark about the listing of appeal, he was unable

Abdul Kalam Islam Sheikh, Mumbai vs. The ITO Ward-4(1), Thane

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

ITA 1861/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai dated 05.03.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. None appeared for the assessee despite service of notices. It is noted that this is the appeal pertaining to AY. 2009-10 and the matter has been listed several time and notices have been

Sahrudaya Health Care (Kurnool) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 596/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sahrudaya Health Care Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Kurnool), Private Limited, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aawcs3735M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

making request to the postal department to detain the mail till the assessee claims the same. In these circumstances, the non-service of notice, if any, is solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee. We, therefore, find no option but to proceed to hear the counsel for Revenue

Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Mrunal Nilesh Desai, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is party allowed with above direction

ITA 1462/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mrunal Nilesh Desai Acit,Circle 19(2) 12/D, Cedar Co-Op Housing 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Society, Edenwoods Cross Bldg, Tardeo, Grant Road, Vs. Pokhram 2, Mumbai-400 007 Thane (W) - 400 610 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Afepd5715N Assessee By : Shri. Tanmay Phadke Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan SR AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

considered the rival contentions. We find that there is a change in the address of the assessee. Therefore, because of the failure of service of notice and orders, the assessee could not remain present before the learned Assessing Officer. Secondly, the order of the learned CIT (A), was also passed

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

confirmed the disallowance. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice RPAD on record or filed any adjournment petition. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing

Kunal Golecha, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 3(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3139/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3139/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kunal Golecha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 8, Harrington Road, Non Corporate Ward 3(4), 16Th Avenue, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aiqpg2506H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 23.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Service Of Notice (Ad On Record) Or Filed Any Adjournment Petition. Hence, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

assessment year 2015-16. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of notice (AD on record) or filed any adjournment petition. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 2 I.T.A. No.3139/Chny/18

Hitesh S. Bhagat, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(3)Section 250

anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor Shri Hitesh S. Bhagat ITA no.5711/Mum./2011 there is any application seeking adjournment either, despite service of notice. From the perusal of the record, we find that this appeal was listed for hearing on various occasions, however, no one appeared on behalf

M/S. Silicon Estates, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 24/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 292BSection 80I

served upon assessee; or (b) not served in time; or (c) served upon assessee in an improper manner. Thus, what is significant is service of notice. It is obvious that the issuance of notice is a pre-condition to cure the defects in service of notice. 17. In the case ... deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in the said section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. It is, however, to be noted

Sudar Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4049/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14ASection 250

./2018 representation on a few dates of hearing on behalf of the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) also furnished proof of service of notice to the assessee through email. Therefore, in view of the above, we proceed to dispose off this appeal ex–parte, qua the assessee after