“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

Mohammed Usman, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

already been made explicit in the aforementioned decisions of the Allahabad High Court. That provision would apply in so far as failure of 'service‟ of notice was concerned and not with regard to failure to „issue‟ notice. In other words, the failure of the Assessing Officer, in reassessment proceedings ... available on record. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the department has failed to produce any proof as regards the service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. It is settled legal position that the issuance of notice u/s.143(2) is sine-qua-non for framing

Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 1091/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1091/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.11, Ward-1, Dhule Mohammadi Nagar, Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule – 424 002 Maharashtra Pan : Anepp8171C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

only on 28/02/2020. To substantiate the said fact, it was advised to file application to the learned AO for details of service of notices and orders. Accordingly, an application dated 26/02/2025 and reminder dated 27/03/2025 was filed before the learned AO. 10. The learned AO vide letter dated 23/04/2025 provide

Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Rajahmundry vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1263/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-13(1), Pan: Aaypa8644C Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa (“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 16/06/2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(2)

case of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a condition precedent for making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and absence of such notice renders

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Sivakumar Sathyapriya, Coimbatore

ITA 4107/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 130Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

heard to the assessee. 7 ITA No.4107/CHNY/2025 [D] 5. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite the issued service of notice of hearing. 6. We have heard ld.Senior Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] held that the exercise

Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3840/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3840/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 86, Vasanth Business Centre, Corporate Ward 3(3), Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacw6606P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri Y. Sridhar, C.A. Requested To Take Up Ground No. 3 As Preliminary Issue For Adjudication As It Goes To The Root Of The Matter. Having No Objection From The Ld. Dr Ms. Gouthami

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 4

held vide para 8 of the impugned order that the Assessing Officer has not furnished any report with reference to the issuance or service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Again, a letter dated 04.08.2025 issued by the ld. CIT(A) requiring the Assessing Officer to furnish

DCIT Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Satyam Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 6283/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadishdcit Cc-5(4), Mumbai Vs Satyam Realtors Private Ltd. Room No.436, 4Th Floor, Room No.4, 3Rd Floor Capri, Anant Kautilya Bhawan, Bandrakurla Kanekar Marg Bandra (East) Complex, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051 Pan:Aaccs7290P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None, Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Revenue Was Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-53, Mumbai [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 24.09.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250Section 43B

assessee to represent the case, nor was any application for adjournment filed. The Ld. DR submitted that bench has directed to service the notice of hearing through the Ld. AO to the assessee. Considering the direction of the Bench the Ld. DR submitted a report on 05.02.2026. The relevant part ... indicates that reasonable efforts were made to serve the notice of hearing, including verification of the address available on the ITBA database and service of notice by affixture through the Income Tax Inspector. However, the assessee has chosen not to respond or participate in the appellate proceedings. So, we proceed

Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Wardha vs. Padmakar Krushnaji Warbhe, Hinganghat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

both the parties have been heard and record perused. The Id. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that assessee. 2. On service of notice of memorandum of appeal of revenue, the assessee filed his Cross Objections raising following grounds, (1) That the order of the learned AO, National Faceless

Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Chennai vs. Ezhumalai, Thirukazhukundram

ITA 4108/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, V Ezhumalai, Non Corporate Ward- S 1123, Ponpatharkoodam, 22(1), Tambaram Gangai Amman Koil Street, Thirukazhukundram, Chengalpattu – 603405 Pan: Acipe8113C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite the issued service of notice of hearing. 6. We have heard ld.Senior Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] ITA No.4108/CHNY/2025 [D] held

Claymine Microns LLP, Wankaner vs. Principal CIT 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 216/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

response to notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act, and therefore, impugned observation of ld.PCIT is factually incorrect and misplaced. In fact, the service of notices u/s 133(6) of the Act as well as compliance by the partners in response thereto clearly proved the identity of the partners which

Arch Tech Building Materials Private Limited, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 4044/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 282(1)

appeal in limine for non-prosecution. We also find that ld.CIT(A) issued notices through ITBA Portal which is not a proper service of notice. 6. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section ... 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 denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment

M/S. Hl Mando Anand India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(4), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2088/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2088/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xi)Section 144B(1)(xix)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 250Section 35

after its introduction and still others are begging the change of mindset. 7.7 This provision starts with non-obstant clause and it warrants service of notice to the assessee in case of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) and 144(2) be replied to by the assessee in 15 days

Akash Somany, Khol Road, Kund, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

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

ITA 4907/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshakash Somany, Vs. Ito, Khol Road, Kund, Rewari, Rewari Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aknps7897J Assessee By : Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Shri Dhananjay Bhardwaj, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

revenue to prove that the suppliers are not traceable. In fact, no evidence has been brought on record to prove even the service of notice under section 133(6) of the Act on Sunil Kumar and Lalitha Devi. With regard to Babu Singh, the notice under section

Sumitra Devi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

ITA 2499/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

under the concept that relief was granted on merits and no need to adjudicate the grounds of appeal regarding service of notices. It was further submitted that the notice prescribed in section 148 of the Act for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement

Shri Beereshwar Co-Op Credit Society Ltd Madabhavi, Belagavi vs. ITO Ward-2, Belagavi

ITA 487/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 487/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)

Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.487/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 3.2 Consequent to aforestated assessment, the Ld. NFeAC initiated penal proceedings u/s 270A by service of notice dt. 30/12/2022, and by notice dt. 15/02/2023, 22/02/2023 & 01/03/2023 the assessee was called upon to show case as to why a penalty

Jitendrabhai Devajibhai Bodar, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

ITA 549/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)

notices issued to the assessee time to time, then the undersigned has left on option to refer the case for ascertaining the service of notice. Finally, the notice was property served upon the assessee on 29.04.2021 through VU. The assessee was given a final opportunity on the above issue vide

Jsp Projects (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 13, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

ITA 3647/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 127(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 63Section 65B

discretion under the direction or in compliance with Ld Addl CIT's prior approval, she had failed to exercise her jurisdiction altogether. Non-service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within the limitation period 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances ... notice under section 143(2) on the ITBA portal-without any real-time alert via SMS or email—as valid issuance or service of notice within the prescribed limitation period. 4.1. That the learned CIT(A) further erred in recording an incorrect factual finding that the appellant had not raised