“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

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 504/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee in the covid-19 pandemic, the appeals

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 503/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 502/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/CTK/2025[2015016]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/CTK/2025[2015016]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanewswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 497/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 496/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Girish Sanu, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mangaluru

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

ITA 804/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

assessee advised him to file an appeal challenging the validity of the assessment on the ground that there was no valid service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, in the last week of March, 2025, the assessee also fallen sick and could not travel from Mangaluru ... below and submitted that the case may be remanded back to the file of the AO in order to verify whether the valid service of notice was made or not? 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that

Paila Venkata Padmavathi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 121/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Vs. Paila Venkata Padmavathi The Income Tax Officer Ward– 5(3) 3-47, Thanam Aayakar Bhavan Paravada Mandal Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam Paravada – 531021 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bsipp1954P]

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 282(1)

case as cited by Ld CIT(A) in Venketesanraghuram prasad singh (798 of 2017) by madras HC is distinguishable as follows: i. The service of notice u/s 143(2) was admittedly beyond the time limit(pg 75 of the paper Book). ii. The objection was raised for the first time

Mukalel Philip Jose, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-4, Kannur

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

ITA 876/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mukalel Philip Jose .......... Appellant Mukalel House, Pushpagiri, Taliparamba Kannur 670141 [Pan: Acnpj4619F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane [Cit(A)] Dated 20.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2011-12 Was Filed On 10.08.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,07,790/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.01.2014 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At Total Income Of Rs.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.. 6. The learned Sr. DR submits that

Toufeeq Charitable Trust, Malappuram vs. ITO, Exemption, Thrissur

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

ITA 818/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Toufeeq Charitable Trust .......... Appellant C-14,139, Thaqua, Andathode, Malappuram [Pan: Aaatt6160E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 14.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Trust Duly Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). It Is Founded With The Object Of Running Educational Institution For Charity. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 14.06.2016 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act. The Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thrissur

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 3 Toufeeq Charitable Trust 6. At the outset

Prathapa Chandra Menon, Ambalappuzha vs. Assistant Commissioner, Aayakar Bhawan, Alleppey

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/COCH/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.767/Coch/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prathapa Chandra Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of Menon Mar Madom, Vs. Income Tax, Ambalapuzha Fast Edb.O, Alappuzha. Ambalappuzha, Alappuzha – 688 561. Pan: Cmzpm 2672R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr A.R

Section 271F

resident, and it is plausible that notices issued at his last known address went unnoticed. The Revenue has not demonstrated proper service of notice. Penalty cannot be sustained when the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to comply. The non-response to notices was due to reasons beyond

Nirmala Patidar, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratlam

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 374/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2012-13 Nirmala Patidar Ito Ward-1 382, Tejsi Chowk Ratlam बनाम/ Gram Dharad, Vs. Ratlam (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aotpp9648C Assessee By Shri Harshit Choukse, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 143(3)

address: ujjain123@gmail.com in the space provided in Form No. 35. Copies of notices sent by CIT(A) are filed. Therefore, due to non-service of notices at proper email address, the assessee could not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A), which has led to the passing of ex-parte order

Brijesh Chandwani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle -6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1528/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

Actual date of issuance of notice under I 29.07.2022 section 148 of the Act. Actual date of service of notice through mail. J 29.07.2022 Then the notice is barred by [para 114(h) of K = H-J 45 Rajeev Bansal. 6. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee

Brijesh Chandwani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle -6(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

ITA 1527/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: CA Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

Actual date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. I 29.07.2022 Actual date of service of notice through mail. J 29.07.2022 Then the notice is barred by [para 114(h) of Rajeev Bansal. K = H-J 45 6. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee

Sri Vinayaka Projects, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1598/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharysri Vinayaka Projects C/O Chandrodaya Theatre Vidyapeeta Circle, Kathriguppa Main Road Bangalore 560 050 ………. Appellant [Pan: Achfs9700J]

For Appellant: Sri R. ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian

Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL

Rajiv Singh Kushwaha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1455/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 282

such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hon'ble Orissa High Court while dealing with similar circumstances of questioning service of notice u/s 263 of the Act, on assesse in judicial custody in the case of PCIT Versus Narayan Kumar Khaitan vide I.T.A ... regard to this ground we are of considered view that if the very basis of assumption of jurisdiction by service of notice u/s 153A of the Act by proper means is not found to be in accordance with law that itself shows how casually the approval u/s 153d

Rajiv Singh Kushwaha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1454/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 282

Rajiv Sigh Kushwaha, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 16, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1453/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 282