“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

DCIT Circle-41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 3870/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 37(1)

restricting the disallowance to 15% especially when there were categorical findings of Investigation Wing and Sales Tax Department followed by non-service of notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. The revenue further contends that the assessee failed to prove 4 I.T.A. No. 3870/Mum/2024 identity and genuineness of all parties

Guru Kirpa Enterprises, Nawanshahr vs. ITO Ward, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 174/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 174/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Guru Kirpa Enterprises K.C. Vs. Ito, Ward, Tower, Nawanshahr, Punjab. Nawanshahr. [Pan:-Aapfg3956J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Written Submission) Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 250Section 68

opinion that it is not ascertainable from the order of the ld. first appellate authority regarding the issue and service of notice on the assessee and it is also not understood as to whether notices has been issued in the e- mail id as mentioned in Form

Ram Kumar Maurya, Bhadohi vs. ITO, Ward - 1(5), Bhadohi

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

under section 282 of the Act, affixture of the same without going the procedure laid under the Act amounts to improper or non-service of notice upon the appellant. 3. BECAUSE the return filed by the appellant on 23.12.2019 in compliance of the notice issued under section

Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Legal Heir of Popatbhai Virabhai Dakhra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 170/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.170/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Physical Hearing) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Popatbhai Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395 Vs. Virabhai Dakhra 001 Plot No.17,Ganesh Row House, Nr. Shyamdham Temple, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Surat- 395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aknpd 3920 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

notices/letters were sent by the CIT(A) through email ID. The assessee stated that since he opted for physical mode of service of notices, therefore, the appellate order should have been served physically. Since, the assessee’s Counsel did not check the email regularly and the appellate order

Kuruvambalam Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Kuruvambalam vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 816/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Kuruvambalam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Chemmalassery, Malappuram 679328 [Pan: Aacak3292M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tirur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 02.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 On 10.02.2021 Declaring Income Of Rs. 1,00,160/- After Claiming Deduction Of Rs. 37,89,750/-

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)(a)

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. Regarding the interest income received from Treasury

Melayil Razak, Nannammukku vs. ITO(Jao), Ward 2, Malappuram

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

ITA 791/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Melayil Razak .......... Appellant 12/467,Melayil Hosue, Nannammukku P.O. Malappuram 679575 [Pan: Avspr2508K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tirur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing The Sale Of Furniture. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 11.06.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Tirur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 26.12.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By Treating

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit

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

ITA 777/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew .......... Appellant Kollamkulam, Kanjirappally 682020 [Pan: Akypm6369A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)Section 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. 6. The material on record clearly indicates that

Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kollam

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

ITA 768/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar .......... Appellant Nusaifa Manzil, Chithara, Madathara Kottarakkara, Kollam 691541 [Pan: Arjpa0218Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,07,500/- During Ay 2017-18 In Bank Account Maintained With Kerala Grameen Bank, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Therefore, The Ao

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Vythiri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vythiri vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kalpetta P.O

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

ITA 627/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Vythiri Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Vythiri P.O., Wayanad 673576 [Pan: Aaaav8077B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kalpetta .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2023-24 On 14.10.2023 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 1,46,100/- After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 1,68,13,360/-. Against

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 40Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)(a)

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO 22(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 964/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 964/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Pawan Kumar Agarwal,………….………...……Appellant P-912, Lake Town, Block-A, Kolkata-700089, West Bengal [Pan:Acvpa3110A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-22(2), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 69A

through proper banking channels. The transaction was duly recorded in the appellant’s books. The ld. CIT(Appeals) sustained the addition holding the service of notice and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi vs. Logic Control Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3974/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158B

whether the assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is legally valid in the absence of any service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 5. The ld. DR vehemently stated that the reliance of the ld. CIT(A) on the case of Hotel Blue Moon ... 292BB has already been made explicit in the aforementioned decisions of the Allahabad High Court. That provision would apply insofar as failure of "service" of notice was concerned and not with regard to failure to "issue" notice. In other words, the failure of the AO, in re-assessment proceedings

M/S Peringalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kannur

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

ITA 787/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Peringalam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Mukkilpeedika, Pullukkara, Kannur 670672 [Pan: Aabap0027A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 05.10.2018 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 10,70,510/-. Against The Said Return Of 2 Peringalam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 20.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 10,70,510/-. While Doing So, The Ao Had Disallowed The Claim For Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of Rs. 10,70,510/- In Respect Of Interest Income Received From Banks.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)(a)

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs ... rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice and orders which read as follows : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. In view of the above, it is essential that before any action is taken, communication of the notice must be done in terms

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2288/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2288/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, V The Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Shirur Kasar, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Shirur So., Beed, Beed – 413249. Pan: Bytpk1339N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh D.Khivansara Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 17.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On Facts & In Law, The Ex-Parte Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals, Nfac Is Opposed To Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Accordingly The Impugned Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

view of the Citation in the case of Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Court has mandated the service of Notice and its procedure, which has not been followed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and grossly neglected by the CIT APPEALS, and accordingly, the impugned appellate ... facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing authority has erred in following due procedure of law in service of notice and order passed without giving an opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice, the order as sustained by the CIT APPEALS

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 857/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.857/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune. Vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Utkarsha, Plot No.14, Yogi Arbindo Society, Sahakar Nagar-2, Pune- 411009. Pan : Aalcs1473M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manish Kumar Sinha Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,43,35,511/-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

appeal was called for hearing neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was filed from the side of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. In this regard, we find that the appeal is very old and being carried on since 5 July 2024. We further find

Aroma Chemicals, Moradabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Moradabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2465/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

income had already been declared in the audited accounts. 5. That the impugned proceedings are bad in law for non-service of notice U/s. 143(2) within prescribed time limit. 6. That under the facts and circumstances of the case both the lower authorities erred in law as well

Radhika Garg, Hathras vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292B

292BB of the Act to apply, section 143(2) notice must have emanated from department and it is only infirmities in manner of service of notice that section seeks to cure and it is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. 5. In the instant case, even though