“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

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -41(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed

ITA 4098/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

determining and adding the Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of Rs. 8,15,000/-.” 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice through e- mail as well as RPAD on more than three occasions. One, R.L. Rathi appeared on 30.07.2025 and thereafter none appeared on behalf

Ram Kishan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-60(5), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5721/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2011-12 Ram Kishan, Vs. Ito, H.No.124, 1St Floor, Ward-60(5), Kala Vihar Cghs Ltd., New Delhi. Mayur Vihar Ph.I, Delhi – 110 091. Pan: Ahapc1442P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate; Ms Uma Upadyay, Ca; & Shri Aditya Garg, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

application of mind. C. No Notice u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 2011-12 being the assessment year under consideration. D. Service of Notice u/s 148 is must before completion of reassessment 3. Now the relevant facts are original return was filed on 31.3.2012 and was processed

Aabid Ali Khan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1714/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2017-18 Aabid Ali Khan, Vs. Acit, 2016, First Floor, Cc-26, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 005. Pan: Agqpk0737J

For Appellant: Shri Sanjesh Jarwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69A

issued and uploaded on 15/04/2021, for filing the Return of Income for the AY 2017-18 within 15 days from the service of notice. However, a corrigendum was issued on 19/04/2021 within 7 days from the service of the notice. Further, on 22/04/2021, a notice

Madan Lal Tomar, Agra vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi Vs. Ito, (Legal Heir Of Late Madan Lal Ward-2(1)(1), Tomar, 51, Keshav Kunj, Agra Pratap Nagar, Agra, 282 001, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpt3982D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 51/Agr/2025 For Ay 2009-10, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Nfac’, In Short] Dated 09.12.2024 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 25.07.2019 By The Ito, Ward-4(2), Agra (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 292B

capacity. Following these two decisions, this Court in Jai Prakash Singh (supra) held that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where the liability is created by a distinct substantive provision

Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Agra vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/AGR/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292B

Income Tax Officer, Kanpur vs. Suleman Raeen, Kanpur Dehat

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 205/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

18th September 2025, which were not attended by the assessee or any representative of the assessee. Assistance of Revenue was sought for service of notice for the hearing fixed on 11/11/2025. At the time of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative filed letter dated 10/11/2025 of the Assessing Officer, intimating that

Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Sangola vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1735/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1735 & 1734/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Achakdani, Ward-2, Pandharpur Achakdani Sangole, Solapur – 413306 Maharashtra Pan : Anupm5837C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. 2. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date fixed for hearing on 02.09.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. We therefore proceed

Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Sangola vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1734/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Institute for Multi-Lingual Education (Imli), Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

framed by CIT(Exemption), Pune evenly dated 14.09.2024. 2. When the cases called for, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice(s) of hearing. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeals with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Registry has informed that there

Institute for Multi-Lingual Education (Imli), Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2731/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Madarsa E Arabia Kashif Ul Uloom, Aurangabad vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2690/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2690/Pun/2024

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. 2. When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to adjudicate with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative. 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused

Sushila Devi Choudhury, Birbhum vs. I.T.O., Circle - 1, Suri

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

ITA 2073/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2073/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Sushila Devi Choudhury,……….………...……Appellant College Road, Sainthia, Birbhum-731234, West Bengal [Pan:Acepc4570F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………..……..Respondent Circle-1, Suri

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

issued on 19.03.2020 thereby requiring the assessee to file and deliver return of income for AY 2013-14 within thirty days from the service of notice. In response, the assessee filed the return of income on 26.03.2020 declaring total income of Rs.5,44,980/-. Notice under section

M/S. Lootcart.Com, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5032/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Lootcart.Com, Income Tax Officer Shop No.29, 3Rd Floor, Ward 22(2)(3), Hi-Life Mall, R.No.311, 3Rd Floor, Vs. P M Road, Piramal Chamber, Santacruz (W), Lal Baug, Mumbai – 400 054 Parel Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaffl5361E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri V.D. Parmar, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 222 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing Duly Sworn Affidavit Has Demonstrated The Peculiar Facts For Condonation Of Delay, Which Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Parmar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 253(5)

Commissioner for decision on merit. 5. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has also raised a legal ground challenging the service of notice /s 142(1) of the Act {page No.1 to 3 in the paper book}. As the Assessee has raised 3 M/s. Lootcart.com the legal

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Argument on behalf of the Appellant 1. The Ld. DR in her arguments stated that the Appellant has not provided her details for service of notices and orders or for further communication. The allegation made by the Ld. DR is false and totally baseless as it is for the first ... time that the Appellant become aware of the impugned assessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. ITO Ward 1(3), only after the physical service of notice dated 17.10.2023 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act at her mother in law's residence in Jaipur. Thereafter, on perusal of the income

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

totally baseless as it is for the first time that the not provided her details for Appellant become aware of the impugned service of notices and orders assessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. ITO or for further communication. Ward 1(3), only after the physical service of notice dated

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

Jambo Credit and Thrift Co-Operative Society Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 1109/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

For Appellant: Ms. Apksha Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

furnished. So, from the contents of Form No. 35, it appears that the applicant furnished two email addresses. Initial burden to prove non service of notices or the impugned order was on the applicant. 4 Jambo Credit and Thrift Co-operative Society Ltd. Jaipur. In this regard, applicant should have

Harjinder Singh, Patiala, Punjab vs. ITO Ward, Sunam, Punjab

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

ITA 510/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69A

fact that in the case of assessee, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served upon the assessee and without such service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessment order as passed by the Ld. AO deserves to be quashed as per binding case ... violative of natural justice; challenges the very assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147/148 for want of valid reasons to believe and for invalid service of notice under section 148 including defective affixture and non-compliance with section 282 and Rule 127; alleges that the approval under section 151 is mechanical