“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

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4048/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 153ASection 153CSection 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

Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT OSD-1 RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2011–12 are dismissed

ITA 4952/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 250Section 32

filed. On perusal of the record, it is observed that on previous occasions also no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of notice. Therefore, in view of the above, we proceed to dispose off the present appeals ex–parte, qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental

DCIT CC 4(4) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2011–12 are dismissed

ITA 4936/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 250Section 32

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD-I), Central Range-7, Mumbai vs. Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2011–12 are dismissed

ITA 4926/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 250Section 32

DCIT Cen Cir 5(2), Mumbai vs. Satra Properties (India) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4796/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 238Section 250Section 31(1)Section 33

material available on record. 3. Pursuant to conclusion of hearing, the learned DR vide letter dated 13/09/2022 filed a copy of service of notice on the Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP‟) appointed in the case of the assessee by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (‘Hon‟ble NCLT’). Along with

Satra Properties (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 3812/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 238Section 250Section 31(1)Section 33

Progressive Currency Bazaar P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4403/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292

section 292BB to apply, section 143(2) notice must have emanated from the department and it is only infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the section seeks to cure and it is not intended to cure the complete absence of notice under section ... deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in 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 that

Legal Heir of Late Shri Satish Indra Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1839/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Information Act, 2005 seeking inter-alia copy of notice alleged to have been issued under section 143(2) dated 12.12.2014, proof of service of notice under section 143(2) etc. Central Public 9 Legal Heir of Late Shri Satish Indra Sharma Information Officer vide its order dated 12.07.2019 passed under ... requirement and not a mere procedural irregularity which can be said to be curable by returning following findings: "7. The issue relating to service of notice under s. 143(2) of the said Act, is an issue which goes to the root of the matter. The Hon'ble apex Court

ITO, 17(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Late Gunvantrai C. Doshi (Through L/H Shri Vipul Gunvantrai Doshi), Mumbai

ITA 2738/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Revenue were initially decided by the Tribunal ex-parte dated 11.02.2021 on merits on failure of the assessee to put in appearance despite service of notice. However, said order was recalled vide order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Tribunal in miscellaneous application No.32 & 33/M/2022. Thereafter, numerous notices were issued

ITO, 17(1)(5), Mubai vs. Late Gunvantrai C. Doshi (Through L/H Shri Vipul Gunvantrai Doshi), Mumbai

ITA 2737/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances are identical, we will take the facts from assessment year 2011-12, which is the lead year. 5. Despite service of notice, none is present from assessee’s side and it seems that the company is under liquidation and despite service of notice on the official liquidator

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the I.T Act, 1961. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice, therefore the appeal is being decided on merits. 3. The facts in brief are that, during the assessment year 2008- 09 the assessee

M/S Ut Worldwide (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 11 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7597/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Is Engaged In The Business Of Air & Ocean & Freight Forwarding, Warehousing & Clearing Agent, The Assessee Has Entered Into A Number Of International Transactions With Its Associated Enterprises Abroad & That, As A Consequence Of The Order Passed Under Section

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153

thus devoid of legally sustainable merits. The lapse of the assessee, in the updation of PAN database, would not really validate the service of notice on the old address, as long as the requirements of the proviso to rule 127 are met by furnishing an address to the authority concerned

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Gandhar Yarn Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Mane

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

aforesaid information the AO has raised any doubt regarding the aforesaid information. Further, it is also evident from the record that the non-service of notice under section 133(6) was not confronted to the assessee. 13. It is pertinent to note that though on one hand

ITO 26(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Vivaan Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside whole issue back to the file of the ld

ITA 1063/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Vivaan Corporation The Income Tax Officer 505, 5Th Floor, Ward 26(3)(4) Ackruti Star, Room No.336, Income Tax Opp Ackruti Centre Point, Office, 34D Floor, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Midc, Bandra East, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 051 Andheri-400 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalfv4392H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sunil A Umap, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A Umap, DR

Section 143

mentioned by the learned CIT – A. 07. Despite notice to the assessee appeared on the appointed date of hearing despite there was proper service of notice by the learned AO wherein the reports are also submitted that the directors who appeared in the remand proceedings have received the notice ... hearing. This appeal is also fixed for hearing earlier ten times, despite service of notice, none appeared on any of the occasions. Therefore, we do not have any other option but to dispose of this appeal on the merits of the case as per information available on record

Shri Uttamchand Sawlachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 610/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

issued and served on the assessee on 08.07.2015. The assessee vide submission dated 22.09.2015 to the Assessing Officer (AO) has confirmed the said service of notice and had sought an adjournment vide letter dated 17.07.2015. It is observed that the assessee has not responded to the AO subsequent

Arabia Beevi, Kuttalam vs. ITO Ward-2, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 581/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.581/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Arabia Beevi, The Income Tax Officer, 4/39, Thaikkal Pattakar Street, Vs. Ward 2, Therzhandur 609 808 Kumbakonam. Kuttalam Taluk. [Pan:Bpspa0967E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 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) 1, Trichy, Dated 18.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 360 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition To Condone The Delay. Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause & The Ld. Dr Has Not Made Any Serious Objections

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

I.T.A. No. 581/Chny/20 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice through RPAD on record. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR. 5. We have heard the ld. DR, perused