“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

Keshvan Jewellers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 32, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1530/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1530/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Keshvan Jewellers………….…………………....…………………....Appellant 80, Burtolla Street, Barabazar, Kol-7. [Pan: Aaefk3801F] Vs. Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹ 74,81,790/-. During The Course Of Scrutiny Proceedings Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act, The Assessing Officer Determined The Total Income At ₹2,77,84,400. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Claimed In The Manufacturing Process, Amounting To ₹ 2,03,02,614. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed A Process-Loss Of About 3.38% Of The Value Of Goods

Section 194CSection 250Section 40

assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the appeal was decided ex parte, as the assessee did not appear despite service of notices, and the order of the Assessing Officer was sustained in full. 4. The assessee has now filed the present appeal before the Tribunal contending

Byas Prasad Verma, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 2/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69A

same has been raised by the appellant before him. 7. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that the service of notice is mandatory u/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961. The Ld. A.O. in his order has kept mum about the service of the notice which

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. ITO Ward3(1), Income Tax Office Azamgarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

sanction which is unsustainable in law. 2. That no notice u/s 148 of the Act date 29.03.2019 served in any manner, therefore without service of notice, an assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act are invalid and deserve to be quashed as such.. 3. That the learned Commissioner ... quantum proceedings as well as penalty proceedings were sent on a wrong address and, therefore, there was no effective service of notice on the assessee, resulting in non-representation on behalf of the assessee before the AO. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the issue of service of notice

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

Arpita Mathew Arukakkal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 501/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency Road, Sadar Nagpur- 440001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Arkpm3965D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 151(1)

National Faceless Appeal Centre was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.23,30,338 made by AO without appreciating that no proper service of notice was done in the case. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre was not justified

Shree Balaji Constructions, Indore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central-(2), Indore

ITA 869/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Shree Balaji Construction, Indore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax Central-(2), Indore

ITA 865/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 153C

Proadcat India Limited, Kolhapur vs. ACIT Circle-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1852/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1852/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Proadcat India Limited, Vs. Ito, National E- Plot No.412, Sheloli Assessment Centre, Bhudargad, Delhi. Kolhapur- 416210. Pan : Aaeca8957D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(3)

appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Pune vs. Anil Jairam Goel, Pune

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

ITA 2241/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. We also find that on earlier four occasions, the assessee remained absent and therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Anil Jairam Goel, Pune

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

ITA 2239/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. We also find that on earlier four occasions, the assessee remained absent and therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal

Vijay Tiles & Cement Products, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1007/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1007/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vijay Tiles & Cement Vs. Assistant Cit Products, Hyderabad Circle 11(1) Pan: Aagfv3841A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vijay Tiles & Cement Products (“The Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05/12/2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 98 Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. In This Regard, The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar”) Invited Our Attention To Para 4

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

affidavit and Serial No.17 of Form No.35 and submitted that the assessee had mentioned his correct email ID as “akularaghuram@yahoo.com” for service of notices. However, the office of the Ld. CIT(A) sent all the hearing notices to a different email ID, namely “sivaram.accountant@gmail.com”. Due to such error in communication

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Navinchandra Veljibhai Shahq, Jamnagar

In the result, the appellant's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 401/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.401/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Income Tax Officer, Wd – Vs. Navinchandra Veljibhai Shah 1(3), Income Tax Department, Ramesh Stores Samkrit Building, Room No. 209, Aayakar Bhavan, Street No. 11, Kamdar Colony Jamnagar – 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Basps6529R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 Dates Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

note that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) talk about the issue of notices to the assessee but does not talk about the service of notice to the assessee. We note that the assessee has not gave due care and attention to the case and negligent in pursuing the case

Asif Iqubal, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan

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

ITA 315/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

I.T.A. No.: 315/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asif Iqubal. 3. Whether ITO WARD 2(3), SIWAN was justified in not ensuring the proper service of notice, calling upon the appellant to produce the documents requisitioned? 4. Whether ITO WARD 2(3), SIWAN was justified in ignoring the trading business

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sonaben Anilkumar Variya, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1677/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) Sonaben Anilkumar Variya Ahmedabad. Arhum Elegans Aec Cross Road City Naranpura Vistar So Ahmedabad. Pan : Amwpv 5380 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09 /10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 2(47)

final hearing of the appeal. 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. 4. The Learned Departmental Representative (DR) appeared and contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without calling for a remand report from

Anandarao Kota, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 238/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Anandarao Kota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Cvopk0669Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.07.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is That The Assessee Is An Individual, No Regular Return Of Income U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Was Filed For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,03,97,300/- In The Savings Bank Account Formed Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)

NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In my considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act ITA No.238/Hyd/2025 4 and Rule ... 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

Festino Vincom Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Festino Vincom Limited Income Tax Officer Cabin 11, Room No. 2, 2Nd Floor, Office Of Income Tax Shyam Chambers, 7/1A Grant Officer, Ward 2(2), Kolkata, Vs. Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal,700069 West Bengal,700012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcf3822F Assessee By : Shri B.K. Sahoo, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149

upon the assessee. The ld. DR also prayed before the Bench that one day time may be allowed so that the date of service of notice issued u/s 148 of he Act on the assessee could be verified from the assessment record and accordingly, the case was adjourned ... from the department that notice was served on the assessee on 11.04.2018. The ld. DR despite being given specific opportunity to prove the service of notice within the time limit as prescribed u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act could not prove that the same was issued within the time

Ramkrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1411/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 144Section 270A

called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for 2 adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing, therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal based on written submission filed by the assessee as well as after hearing

Houlihan Lokey Ad vs. Iory (India) Private Limited, Mumbaivs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3767/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 40

natural justice by: 2.1 Not serving the notice on the Appellant on it's registered email IDs (ie. the proper mode of service of notice as per the provisions of section 282 of the Act read with Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1961); 2.2 Only placing the above

Shri Gurdev Singh, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Jalandhar

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

ITA 48/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 48/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250

observed by the ld. First appellate authority that the assessee instead of filing of application for condonation of delay has contested the service of notice issued u/s 148 and 142(1) and as such, in absence of any reasonable explanation regarding the delay of 594 days, the appeal has been

Amarjot Singh Village Babehali Distt Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Gurdaspur G T Road Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 103/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

notices from the office of the ld. first appellate authority has been issued in the ITBA portal, resulting in no proper service of notice on the assessee and as such the assessee could not represent the hearing. Apart from this objection various other legal ground has been taken ... assessee after receipt of the draft assessment order and the same has been filed after 11 (eleven) months from the date of service of notice u/s 148. 8. Moreover, on merits he submitted that the credit entries relating to bank deposits in Axis Bank are sourced out of funds obtained