← All Phrases

“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
75
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
73
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
68
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
68
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
63
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

Avittathur Service Cooperative Bank Ltd No 706, Thrissur vs. Ward 1(1), Thrisssur, Thrissur

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

ITA 800/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Avittahur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Avittathur, Thrissur 680683 [Pan: Aacaa0257E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 20.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 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 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

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 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 proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. The issue that arises for our consideration

Krishnan Saravanan, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 2, Palakkad

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

ITA 736/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Krishnan Saravanan .......... Appellant 13/344 Chullimada, Kanjikode, Palakkad [Pan: Djhps8419G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Palakkad .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 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 11.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Authorised Service Agent Of Muthoot Money Transfer & Oxigen Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.07.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 3,97,020/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palakkad (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
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 proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. After hearing the learned

The Thimiri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kasaragod vs. ITO Ward, Kasaragod

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

ITA 731/COCH/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Thimiri Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Nhanumaki, Chervathur, Kasaragod 671313 [Pan: Aabat0462H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kasaragod .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 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 20.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 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 Had Not Filed Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 30.10.2015. In Response

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 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, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. The issue that arose for my consideration

Touch Tone Teleservices, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 987/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 987/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Touch Tone Teleservices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 3-6-550/4, 1St Floor, Ward-4(1), Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aacft5196N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR
Section 114Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

notice through e-mail and having provided a specific address at Sl.No.17 in “Form-35”, at which it had sought for the service of notices, was never validly intimated about the fixation of the appeals on the aforementioned three days, therefore, it had remained divested of an opportunity