“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

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

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

Hemraj Prabhudas Chandel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5) Previously ITO, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1413/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250Section 69C

Both the Id. AO and ld. ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 Coimbatore did not verify the details furnished in proper perspective and service of notice as most of the notice not served properly to appellant thus violated the principles of natural justice. 5. Ld. AO erred in law or on facts ... mentioning service of notices through speed post in Table 1 of assessment order which creates contradiction with table 1 of draft assessment order (SCN). 6. Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 Coimbatore erred in law or on facts by not appreciating the service of the notices during the appeal proceedings and erred

Ravinder Singh 402Sai Deep Apartment 26-Ram Bagh Colony Shinde Ki Chawni Lashkar Gwalior, Gawalir vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Gwalior Aaykar Bhawan City Centre Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals

ITA 419/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

high and excessive. 3. That the Exparte order passed u/s.144 by the Assessing Officer was not called for as there was no proper service of notice as required by the law. …………………………..” 6. Perused the record. None for assessee. Heard Ld. Sr. DR for revenue. 7. We find that

Ravinder Singh 402 Sai Deep Apartment 29 Ram Bagh Colony Shinde Ki Chawni Lashkar Gwalior, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Gwalior Aaykar Bhawan City Centre Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals

ITA 418/AGR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Tirathraj Rajmurat Maurya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

filing portal of the Income Tax Department nor received on the registered email address of the Appellant and consequently there was no valid service of notice in terms of section 282 of the Act. The absence of valid service vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. 1. The Appellant respectfully submits that ... filing portal for the relevant period, which clearly shows absence of any such notice. 3. Under section 282 of the Act, service of notice is a jurisdictional requirement and must be effected in the prescribed manner, either electronically through the registered account or email or by other recognised modes such

Tirathraj Rajmurat Maurya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 504/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

Tirathraj Rajmurat Maurya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 142BSection 147Section 151ASection 250

Raghunath Singh, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 490/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

further submitted that in “Form 35", the assessee had specifically opted out of service by e-mail and had requested physical service of notices at his address that was provided at Sr. No. 17, viz. “Flat No. 15-7-780, Osmangunj, Hyderabad - 500012". The Ld. AR submitted that ... merits, the learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without ensuring valid service of notice, which, thus, had deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity of being heard, therefore, the the delay involved in filing the present appeal in all fairness

Manavadariya Dharmendra Kantilal, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 318/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

further submitted that in “Form 35”, the assessee had specifically opted out of service by e-mail and had requested physical service of notices at his address that was provided at Sr. No. 17, viz. “Flat No. 15-7-780, Osmangunj, Hyderabad – 500012”. The Ld. AR submitted that ... merits, the learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without ensuring valid service of notice, which, thus, had deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity of being heard, therefore, the the delay involved in filing the present appeal in all fairness

Asl Capital Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in terms above

ITA 1125/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.1125/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Add.CIT

Section 127Section 147Section 260A

lies in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench since the assessment order was passed in Mumbai. 3. None appeared for the assessee despite service of notice. 4. We have heard ld. counsel for the revenue. We find that the very question fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Venus Drugs and Cosmetics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Word-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appe

ITA 5933/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: None

Section 69C

outset, it is pertinent to record that despite due service At the outset, it is pertinent to record that despite due service of notice, neither did any authorised representative appear on of notice, neither did any authorised representative appear on of notice, neither did any authorised representative appear on behalf

Dinesh Babu Saxena, Noida vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3874/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sahil Sharma & Sanjay ParasharFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

postal address. The Assessing Officer was thus constrained to complete the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act as the assessee deliberated avoided service of notice. 5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue for consideration in the present appeal is whether the assessment

Ajay Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Noida Gbn, Noida

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

ITA 2253/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 156Section 249Section 270ASection 270MSection 276C

assessment or the reassessment order is paid within the period specified in the notice of demand i.e. within 30 days of the service of notice and also if no appeal has been filed against the assessment or the reassessment order. To avail this immunity, assessee is required to file ... specified are fulfilled, then the assessing officer upon expiry of the period of filing of appeal i.e. 30 days from the date of service of notice of demand, shall grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC

Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As Ceb Inc.), United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2025/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As The Assistant Commissioner Ceb Inc.), 1201, Wildson Of Income Tax, Blvd. Arlington, Va 22209, Vs Circle- 1(2)(1), International United States Taxation E-2 Block, Civic Care Of Address Centre, Minto Road, New First International Financial Delhi-110002. Centre, Level-2 Plot No. C-54 & 55, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra, India. Pan- Aadct5119K Assessee Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

notice under section 148 of the Act, however, it has not been served to the Company.  Therefore, in absence of the service of notice under section 148 of the Act, draft assessment proceeding is void ab initio.  Without prejudice the above grounds, even if is assumed that the notice under

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Kuldeep Kaur, New Delhi

Accordingly, the cross objections filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is allowed

ITA 5978/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Circle 28 (1), Vs. Kuldeep Kaur, New Delhi. S – 493, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aigps1433B) Co No.95/Del/2025 (In Ita No.5978/Del/2024) (Assessment Years : 2016-17) Kuldeep Kaur, Vs. Acit, Circle 28 (1), S – 493, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aigps1433B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Shri S.S. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

physically and the assessee had viewed it on ITD Portal only on 05.07. 2021. He further submitted that because of the non-receipt / service of notice claimed to be issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 by the midnight of 31.03.2021 and the same was served on ITD Portal only after ... observe that the assessee had viewed it on ITD Portal only on 05.07.2021. We further observe that because of the non-receipt / service of notice claimed to be issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 by the midnight of 31.03.2021 and the same was served on ITD Portal only after 01.04.2021 with

Smt. Jyoti Garg, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1 (1), Bikaner

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assesses are allowed for

ITA 61/JODH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

assessee. 4. In our view, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits after granting adequate opportunity by proper service of notice on the assessee and he ought to have disproved the claim of the assessee by rebutting its contention with support of corroborative documentary evidence

Sampat Devi Agarwal, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 250

appellant are without merit and are hereby rejected". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the facts of the date of service of notices issued u/s 250 of the Act, on the assessee, so as to enable the assessee to present his submissions in defence of the claims made ... grounds of appeal. In the present case, the factum of service of notice of hearing on the assessee is neither mentioned nor inferred from the record that certainly tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice and debarred the assessee an adequate opportunity to argue it case before

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

assessee may be rejected. Lastly, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection with regard to service of notice if he has appeared in any proceedings or co-operated in any enquiry relating to an assessment. 11. We have heard the rival submission ... issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 06/02/2019 to file the return of income by granting 30 days time from the date of service of notice. It is also a undisputed fact that the managing director of the assessee company had filed the reply on 20/05/2019 where

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

assessee may be rejected. Lastly, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection with regard to service of notice if he has appeared in any proceedings or co-operated in any enquiry relating to an assessment. 11. We have heard the rival submission ... jurisdiction as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is the jurisdictional notice and non-issuance of notice is not curable. The service of notice on the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed period of time is a prerequisite for framing the re- assessment

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

assessee may be rejected. Lastly, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection with regard to service of notice if he has appeared in any proceedings or co-operated in any enquiry relating to an assessment. 11. We have heard the rival submission ... jurisdiction as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is the jurisdictional notice and non-issuance of notice is not curable. The service of notice on the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed period of time is a prerequisite for framing the re- assessment