“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

Shri.A.A. Balachandran, Thrissur vs. The ACIT, Thrissur

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

ITA 35/COCH/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.A. Balachandran .......... Appellant Ayyappanparambil House, Mulumkunnathukavi, P.O., Thrissur 680581 [Pan: Abxpb2391K] Vs. Acit, Centralcircle, Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessment Year: 2008-09 Komalam Vijayan (L/H Of Late P.M. Vijayan) .......... Appellant Punchadat House, Kolazhy, Moorkkanikkara,Thrissur 680581 [Pan: Abopv0517A] Vs. Acit, Centralcircle, Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. 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 CIT- DR. 8. The learned CIT-DR submits that

Harwinder Singh, Sangrur vs. ITO Ward Sangrur, Sangrur

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 414/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

hearing at wrong e-mail Id, therefore, the intimation of fixation of appeal did not come into the notice of the assessee. No service of notices through ITA 414/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 3 physical mode was made. The assessee, thus, was not aware of the dates of hearing before

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Thakor Legal Heir Narendakumar Khodaji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 948/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.948/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Ward-4(2)(1) बनाम/ Thakor V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Legal Heir Narendrakumar Khodaji Thakor Ahmedabad – 382 481 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afwpt 1453 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

mandatory, and non-compliance renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. It was also noted that section 292BB, which cures defects in the service of notice, applies only to a living assessee and cannot validate a notice issued in the name of a deceased person. Further, the CIT(A) relied

ACIT 41 2 1, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Jyotichand Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 5460/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 03/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

deleted. The appeal on Ground Nos 1 to 7 are thus treated as allowed. ated as allowed.” 5. Before us, despite due service of notice, none appeared on Before us, despite due service of notice, none appeared on Before us, despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf behalf

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

orders themselves. SUBMISSIONS: (ON JURISDICTION /ROOT OF THE MATTER) : Foreign Company Status of the Appellant, Absence of Permanent Establishment in India, and Defective Service of Notice under Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Residency in Singapore Remains Undisputed The Appellant, Argos, and its holding company, Ephesus, furnished valid ... either AY 2015–16 or AY 2017–18. This failure to record jurisdictional satisfaction is itself a fatal defect. IV. Invalid Service of Notices under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act for Extra-Territorial Service, and service on a Non-Existent Company render the proceedings to be Void. Under

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Legal Heir of Late Smt. Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya, Jetpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 185/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

deceased-assessee was served upon legal heir who, then, participated in proceedings, said legal heir could not be deprived of right to challenge service of notice. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Sheela Devi, 64 CCH 186 ( Del-trib), held that if show cause notice ... deceased-assessee was served upon legal heir who, then, participated in proceedings, said legal heir could not be deprived of right to challenge service of notice. 37. On identical facts, Hon ‘ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of GVK Jaipur Kishangarh Expressway Limited, 100 CCH 0428 held that

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 145/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15-2016-17) Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8-New Meghani Nagar Corner, Sahakar Vs. 1(1)(1), Main Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Rajkot - 360002 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aszpr8968H (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2025 : 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, J.M.: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 – 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.06.2024/06.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, On 28.03.2022/ 29.03.2024. Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows (Ita No. 143- Rjt-25):

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

sent to old consultant who did not inform to the assessee above the notice for hearing of the case. Further, there was no service of notices or impugned order through physical mode upon assessee. Therefore, the assessee did not have any information about fixation of hearings or about passing

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 144/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 143/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

Nirbhay Consultants Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1980/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

response the assessee company did not file any return as required within the 30 days from the date of service of notice. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) dated 10-07-2018 and 21-08-2018, the 2 I.T.A No. 1980/Ahd/2024 Nirbhay Consultants

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

competent authority, notice under section 148 was issued on 29.03.2019 requiring the assessee to submit Return of Income within 30 days from the service of notice. In response to the said notice, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Notices under section 142(1) along with query letter ... s.148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the AO and sub-s. (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the AO proceeds to assess, reassess or recomputed escaped income. Sec. 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the AO that the income chargeable

Shri Chhaganbhai Muljibhai Patoliya, Jetpur vs. The ITO Ward-1 (2) (3) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 477/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.477/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Chhaganbhai Muljibhai Patoliya, Vs The Ito Ward 1(2)(3), Radhe Park, Shreeji School, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course, . Amarnagar Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001 Jetpur (Gujarat) - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ddrpp2365A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 50Section 50C

which is admitted by the appellant. Further When the appellant challenges the validity of the reopening of assessment, reasonable opportunity not given and service of notice then the onus lies upon the appellant to substantiate the claim by bringing on record cogent material or submitting relevant evidence in support

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir - 4, Surat vs. Nareshkumar B. Agarwal, Surat

ITA 164/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

Section 147Section 250

order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that the AO may be restored to the above extent.” 7. On service of notice of revenue's appeal, the assessee filed CO raising following grounds: “1) The block assessment orders passed u/s 153A

Anis Ahmad, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 463/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Anis Ahmad V. The Income Tax Officer 95/91, Ameen Ganj Ward 1(3)(1) Parade, Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aozpa6913K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

vide letter F No.225/363/2017-ITA.II dated 15.11.2017. It was submitted ITA No.463/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 9 that as per this Instruction, the process of service of notice under section 142(1) of the Act was to be completed by 31.12.2017 in those cases where the cases pertained to non-filer ... perusal of the last paragraph, i.e., paragraph 4 in the above said letter, specifically lays down that the process of service of notice under section 142(1) of the Act should be completed by 31.12.2017. A perusal of the assessment order ITA No.463/LKW/2025 Page 8 of 9 itself shows that

Venus Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 144B

aside. ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025 315 to 317/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 10 2. Because clause (6) of section 144B provides mode of service of notice and order (6) For the purposes of faceless assessment (i) an electronic record shall b+ authenticated by (a) the National Faceless Assessment Centre ... Income Tax Act as such the same is liable to be set-aside. 2. Because clause (6) of section 144B provides mode of service of notice and order (6) For the purposes of faceless assessment (i) an electronic record shall b+ authenticated by (a) the National Faceless Assessment Centre

Venus Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 144B

Venus Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 144B

Venus Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 144B

Pune E Commodites Broking Private Limited, Pune vs. Ward 4(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2071/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared from the side of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was furnished despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing