“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

Blackstone Infracon Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6005/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 250(6)

total income at Rs.26,97,772/- as against the returned loss of Rs.79,129/-. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, this appeal is being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R. 4. The facts

Badley Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 9433/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Badley Singh, Vs Ito, 5/11, Gda Market, Ward-1(5), Sector-5, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Pan : Aygps9473B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 30Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Service Of Notice, Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That On The Basis Of Air Information That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.16,18,000/- In His Savings Bank Account, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act After Recording The Reasons. Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 30Th March, 2007 Was Issued To The Assessee. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Since There Was Non- Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee, The Ao, Invoking The Provisions Of Section 144 Of The Act, Made Addition Of Rs.16,18,000/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee U/S 69 Of The Act. In Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Upheld The Validity Of The Reassessment Proceedings As Well As The Addition On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

September, 2019 of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, relating to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice, therefore, this appeal is being decided on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR. 3. Facts

Ang Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2120/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(3)

learned CIT(A)-22, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, this appeal is being disposed of on learned DR. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- i. The order of the Authorities

Swastik Coal Corporation (India) Ltd., Indore vs. The Addl. CIT Range-5, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2005-06

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 282Section 68

been able to satisfy us on this aspect. In that event we do not hesitate to conclude that the provision of service of notice as stipulated under Section 282 of the Act as if it is a summon issued by a court under the code of civil procedure ... months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. Thus, it cannot be held to be a valid service of notice on the Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd assessee. In this regard we have considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR some

Simranpal Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Simranpal Singh Suri, Vs Ito, Jg-1/77, Vikaspuri, Ward 45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Akzps3760Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farath Khan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

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 escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing

Mikado Realtors (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri LalitFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 263

Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter

Digvijay Advisor Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad Up vs. ITO Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4540/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68Section 69C

eventuality notice u/s 148 was never served on the assessee before completion of assessment. Despite the objection of the assessee repeatedly that no service of notice was made and the said notice was served through affixture without resorting to service by post etc., the lower authorities have upheld the validity ... service of notice. The learned counsel for the assessee referring to section 282 read with service rules from 9 to 17/20 of order ‘V’ under CPC, 1908, submitted that 4 when the affixture is admittedly after working hours and without identification of place/witness, the proceedings u/s 147/148 are void

Honey Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6214/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

evident from the hand written date on the questionnaire and verifiable from dispatch register of AO. Thus the period of service of notice u/s 142(1) may be considered from issue date of 16.10.2018 instead of 5.10.2018 as without questionnaire the appellant could not had replied the notice ... been passed after one & half months of due date of filing of submissions by the appellant. Even considering the possible delay in service of notice, the appellant had not bothered to file the requisite details for a long period of time without assigning any "reasonable cause" for such delay

Honey Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6213/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

Honey Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6212/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

Honey Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6211/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

Honey Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6210/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

Honey Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6209/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6204/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6203/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon vs. Dlf Universal Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and consequently, the cross objections filed by the assessee becomes infructuous

ITA 5963/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learnedFor Respondent: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in observing that the proceeding

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153Section 153A

served on completion of the search, b) no inquiry of any nature, during the period from 30.01.2013(date of search) to 10.03.2015(service of notice u/s 153A), has been carried out either by the Investigating Division or by the Assessing Officer, till the initiation of proceedings

Sahil Education Society, Bhiwani vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5710/DEL/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

assessee given in the impugned orders is same as have been given in the appeal papers. Therefore, there is no question of no service of notice upon assessee. It is an admitted fact that two notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) have returned un-served with the remarks insufficient

Sahil Education Society, Bhiwani vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5709/DEL/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

Joginder Pal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Accordingly, we hold that notice was served on to the assessee on 30.9.2011. Accordingly ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 3565/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Joginder Pal Ito M/S. Raj Kumar & Associates, Cas, Ward-39(1) Vs. L-7 A, South Ext., Part-2 New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049 Pan Aklpp5112F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudreja, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

number of the appellant have been written in close proximity, thus must be written by the same person. > No objection regarding the valid service of notice has been raised by the appellant during assessment proceedings. > Objection raised during appeal is clearly an afterthought. > There is an overwriting not only ... been raised by the appellant during assessment proceedings therefore provisions of Section 292BB are applicable. THUS on the basis of above facts the service of notice is held to be valid and within time and the ground of appeal is dismissed.” 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel Shri Raj Kumar Gupta

Deepak Choudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

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

ITA 9048/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 115Section 131(2)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

therefore, there was no occasion for assessee to know the same which were not to be found in his email and for non-service of notice, the observations of CIT(A) do not merit consideration. He further submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is ready to appear before