“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

Ishan Arora, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 669/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

business purchases and household expenses (drawings). 5. That the assessment framed u/s 144/147 is bad in law due to lack of valid service of notice u/s 148 and non-grant of opportunity under section 142(1), violating principles of natural justice. 6. That the enhancement of interest u/s 234A ... your kind consideration showing drawings also. 4. That the assessment framed u/s 144/147 is bad in law due to lack of valid service of notice u/s 148 and non-grant of opportunity under section 142(1). violating principles of rnatural justice. The notice u/s 148 allegedly dated 26.03.2013 was never

Kailash Bhil, Ajmer vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Ajmer

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

ITA 175/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

address available as per sale deed, since PAN is not mentioned by the appellant in the said sale deed. This amounts to valid service of notice. Further, I find that the appellant has not responded to the several notices Issued by Ld AO u/s 142(1) and served by registered

Mali Ram Yadav, Therkyo Ki Dhani vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1110/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mali Ram Yadav Thekryo Ki Dhani, Village & Post: Jahota, Tehsil: Amer Distt: Jaipur 303 701 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward - 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ABJPY 6715A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA Mrs. Prachela Kabra, CA राजस्व की ओर से /

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

also not allowed in the computation of tax although it is nowhere discussed in the order. 5. Improper Service of Notices by A) -That the learned AD erred in proceeding with ex-parte assessment under section 144 as the statutory notices u/s 148, 142(1), and 144 were either

M/S Vxa Global LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1027/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Paridhi Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 37(1)

appellant 5) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO which is passed without service of notice and SCN and without providing opportunity of being heard 6) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding

Navnirman Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

assessee/reassess the income/loss for the said assessment year and, I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the service of notice, a return in the prescribed form for the said assessment year. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Addl. Commissioner

Rajasekar Dhanapal, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 2299/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2299/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajasekar Dhanapal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5/45, D Block, Tnhb Quarters, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Kancheepuram 631 501 Tambaram. Currently Residing At 30 N Gould St Ste R Sheridan Wy 82801. [Pan: Ayrpr1457M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Found This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 354 Days. The Ld. Ar Submits There Was No Communication From First Appellate Authority About The Passing Of Impugned Order Nor Service Of The Order. The Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 144Section 69A

paper book containing pages 1 to 12, it is noted that the Revenue did not bring on record any evidence showing the service of notice nor the impugned order and accordingly, in the absence of any such evidence, we hold that there is no delay. 5. At the outset

Thomas Victor, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 19(6), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2987/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271D

Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter

Mamta Pathak, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(2) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 3200/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 Mamta Pathak, Ito, Ward-1(2), 404, 4Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Shivam Apt., Vs. Ashar It Park Mohanji Sunderji Rd No.9, Wagale Estate, Raghunath Nagar, Thane, Thane, Maharashtra-400604. Maharashtra-400604. Pan : Alcpp3684Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Tanmay Phadke For Revenue : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 07-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 192Section 69

consider the legal submission on the limitation. It was categorically stated in the statement of facts that in the absence of service of notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act, the limitation does not commence as per the provisions of Section 249(2) of the Act. Further, the Ld.CIT ... portal and as per section 249(2)(b), the period of limitation for filing appeal has to be counted from the date of service of notice of demand and not from the date of the assessment order which the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration while dismissing

Mahesh Ratilal Ganatra, United Kinddom vs. The DCIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2125/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, SR.DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)

dated 06.01.2023. It is not emanating from records as to whether the said notice was ever served on the assessee? The section mandates service of notice and not issuance of notice alone. In the absence of service of notice, it is not possible for the assessee to know about

Himabindu Penmatsa, Seethammadhara vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhimabindu Penmatsa, 50-1-66/2, Asr Nagar, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh - 530013 ............... Appellant Pan: Aljpp0714J V/S Income Tax Officer, Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road, ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 80T

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. During the hearing, despite service of notice on the assessee, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. Therefore, we proceed to decide the present

Gokulam Seva Nyas, 1 Resham Kendra, Gram Khajuriya Sanwer vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal, Room No:201, II Floor, Reac, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 83/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 80G

failed to take care. That, neither the income-tax portal nor the email a/c was regularly checked and there was no physical service of notices of hearing and impugned orders. Ultimately, the assessee became aware of impugned orders on 12.12.2024. Immediately, the assessee appointed new (present) counsel to handle these

Gokulam Seva Nyas, 1 Resham Kendra, Gram Khajuriya Sanwerc vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal, Room No:201, II Floor, Reac, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 82/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 80G

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

complimentary to s.147. Sub-s. (2) of 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

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Barabanki

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

ITA 476/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer – 5(5) Sumerganj Dharauli Ram Barabanki - 2 Sanehi Ghat Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajnpj8871G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

learned AO erred in law and in fact in completing the assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the Act without proper service of notice u/s 142(1). The appellant was unaware of the notice, as no delivery was made physically OR through effective communication. Hence, the principles of natural justice

Sudam Pandurang Beldare, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Pune

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

ITA 2028/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

emanating from Assessment Order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and the available records. 3. Registry has informed that

Rajendra Annasaheb Masute HUF, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1191/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1191/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 144Section 69

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date of hearing fixed on 12.06.2025, 24.07.2025 and 26.08.2025 neither the assessee nor any Authorised Representative represented

Sudha, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2360/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2360/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sudha, The Ito, 4-254, Panchayat Street, Ward-4, Avaraikulam, Tirunelveli. Radhapuram, Tirunelveli-627 133. [Pan: Gbtps 0255 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

other grounds that may be raised in future the appeal may please be allowed. 3. Before us, none appeared for the assessee despite service of notice for hearing. At the outset, we notice that the assessee by the ground No.2 challenges the JAO jurisdiction to issue notice u/s148 dated

Govindaraj Krishnamoorthy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1533/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 147Section 271D

order of AO levying penalty. Hence, assessee is further in appeal before us. 3. Before us also, no one appeared before us despite service of notice of hearing. The Ld. Addl. CIT-DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not filed supporting evidences

Sanjeev Kumar, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-4 Panipat, Panipat

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 314/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.314/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Sanjeev Kumar, 13, Vpo Ugra Kheri, Panipat, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Haryana 132103 Pan: Asvpk-4205-C बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-6, Panipat, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 132103 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Kumar Mittal, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.11.2024, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Mukesh Kumar Mittal, Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessment U/S.148 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Vide Order Dated 30.11.2018 In Ex-Parte Proceedings. He Contended That As Per The Assessment Order, The Ao Had Issued Notice U/S.148 Of The Act On 31.03.2018 Through Speed Post As Well As Online

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar Mittal, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

digitally signed at 7.43 PM could be sent by through speed post after 7.43 PM. Thus, assessment made u/s.148 of the Act without service of notice is unsustainable. The ld. Counsel further submitted that even in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee was not given proper opportunity to rebutting findings ... assessee. Hence, I find merit in the submissions of the assessee challenging validity of the assessment proceedings. 5. The assessment framed without service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction, hence, quashed. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

Deepak Communication, Ajit Nagar vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 3076/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3076/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Deepak Communication, Gali No.4, Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110031 Pan: Aamfd-3905-A बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-60(6), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue, In The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Against Levy Of Penalty U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Amounting To Rs.1,04,674/-. The Assesssee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.13,55,000/- During Demonetization Period I.E. Between 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account Maintained With Yes Bank Ltd. Krishna Nagar Delhi, Account No. 226190000295. The Return Of Income Was Filed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 4. The assessee upon service of notice by the CIT(A) shall respond to the same, without fail. 5. It is further brought to the notice of Bench that assessee’s appeal