“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 525/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 276CSection 292B

there was no lack of jurisdiction in his case and the orders were therefore, very much valid. On the issue of non-service of notice under section 143(2), the ld. AR invited our attention to the fact that the assessment order did not make any mention of issue ... notice under section 143(2), while it made mention about the issue and service of notices under section 148. It was further submitted that the assessee had not received any notice under section 143(2) by hand and the Department was not able to prove the service of the same

Jai Bhavani Gramvikas Bahuueshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Nanded vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 931/PUN/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.931/Pun/2025 Jai Bhavani Gramvikas Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Bahuueshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, At Post Sanghavi Benak, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded- 431716. Pan : Aaatj9445J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab Of The It Act. 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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

When the appeal was called for hearing neither appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing, therefore, we 3 proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing

Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah, Anand vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Ward-5, Anand

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

ITA 990/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, CA

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Officer. It was contended that the reopening was bad in law, as the mandatory requirements of recording and communication of reasons and proper service of notice had not been fulfilled. On merits, the assessee submitted that she was a housewife with no independent taxable income and that the deposits

Prasanna Prabhakaran L/H of Late Vasava Panicker Prabhakaran Kavintavadakkadath, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1741/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 147Section 148

representative (which term includes plurality of persons) is present before the taxing authority in some capacity or voluntarily appears in the proceeding without service of notice or upon service of notice not addressed to him but to the deceased assessee, and does not object to the continuance of the proceeding

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

High Court for the State of 14 ITA.No.680/Hyd./2025 Telangana under identical set of facts has held that, where last date for service of notice and initiating proceedings u/sec.148 under the un-amended provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 coming to an end on 31.03.2021, but, notice had been

Ravi Jaidev Kukreja, Amravati vs. ITO Ward -3, Amravati

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 344/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryravi Jaidev Kukreja, Ito, Ward-3, Amravati. Ward 57, Kawar Nagar Lane, Saraswati Villa Apartment, Vs. Amravati-444606. Pan: Ajrpk 3352 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

submit the details called for with substantiation/explanation. It is pertinent to note that the Assessee has filed his return of income only after service of notice u/sec. 148 declaring total income of Rs.2,42,413/-. Moreover, the Assessee has purposely not complied with any of the statutory notices issued

Manish Kumar Jain, Rajnandgoan, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon

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

ITA 518/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 282

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Manish Kumar Jain, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon

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

ITA 517/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 282

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Manish Kumar Jain, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon

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

ITA 516/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 282

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Late Sh. Lakha Singh Through Legal Heir Hira Singh Dera Pyara Singh Barna Thanesar Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Aaykar Bhawan, Near Community Hall Sector-5, Kurukshetra Haryana, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 1151/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

through the legal heirs. In appeal, legal and factual grounds were raised, including challenge to the validity of reassessment for non-service of notice u/s 148, validity of best judgment assessment, denial of natural justice, and challenge to additions on merits. The legal heir also sought to file additional evidence ... deposits, including sale proceeds of agricultural land. 6.3 It was also strongly urged that apart from factual additions, legal grounds such as non-service of notice u/s 148 and validity of reassessment proceedings were raised before the CIT(A), but these were not adjudicated at all. It was prayed that

Rahul Arunkumar Pandit, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Pune

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

ITA 1926/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1926/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rahul Arunkumar Pandit, Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Pune. Flat No.-5, Gopadma No.39, Plot No.18, Prabhat Road, Lane No.9, Pune- 411004. Pan : Abypp1142R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manishkumar Sinha Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Ld. Jcit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessed Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 55,36,400/-. The Additions Made Without Considering The Fact Of The Case Are Illegal & Unsustainable In Law & The Same May Please Be Deleted. 2] The Ld. Jcit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Case Ex-Parte Without Waiting For Appellant To Furnish The Submission & Evidences. The Ld. Jcit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Appellant Could Not Respond To The Notices, As He Has Changed His

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manishkumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 57

this Tribunal. 4 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was filed despite the service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on the record and also after hearing

Speciality Papers Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4917/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Speciality Papers Ltd., Dcit-4(3)(1), Ground Floor, 93 Dadiseth, Aayakar Bhavan, Agairy Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aaecs 0861 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

which is is legally is legally legally invalid invalid invalid and and and liable to be deleted. Speciality Papers Ltd 2. Despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the Despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the Despite due service of notice, none appeared

Smt. Suraiya Begam, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(3)*(4)(Now Ward -(3)(5), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Suraiya Begum V. The Income Tax Officer 93/94-B, Rajbi Road Ward 1(3)(4) [Now Ward 1(3)(5) Buchadkhana Kanpur Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Chwpb7290Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 2(14)Section 271FSection 69A

bank accounts during the demonetization period”, vide letter F No.225/363/2017-ITA.II dated 15.11.2017. It was submitted 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 ... letter: 5.1 A 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 itself shows that the notice under

Fehmida Begum, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 501/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, SR-DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

substantial cash deposits. Hence, the Ld. AO had the power to examine the entire year’s bank deposits. Further, the plea of non- service of notices under section 142(1) of the Act is not supported by any cogent evidence. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

DCIT, Central Circle 28, New Delhi vs. Manoj Kumar Singh, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and consequently, the appeal

ITA 3717/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Manoj Kumar Singh, Vs Dcit, S-17, Ground Floor, Central Circle-28, Panchsheel Enclave, Delhi. New Delhi - 110 017. Pan: Aaxps2824H Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra &For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

account or other documents; and by Finance Act, 2009, clause (c) was inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service ... such records. 12 ITAs No.2237 &3717/Del/2025 By Finance Act, 2009, clause (c) was inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid

Manoj Kumar Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

ITA 2237/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmamanoj Kumar Singh, S-17, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi - 110 017. Pan: Aaxps2824H Vs Dcit, Central Circle-28, Delhi.

Section 131(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8767/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the above objections. Further he submitted that assessee has raised submissions before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

appeal before CIT(A) assailing the assessment order passed by AO on the ground that framing of assessment u/s 143(3) without service of notice u/s 143(2) to the assessee is bad in law. 1.8 That on 28.08.2019, the CIT(A) passed the impugned order and held that ... attending the assessment proceedings etc., shall not apply. Further, what is relevant to note is that this section dispenses with the requirement of `service’ of notice in the given circumstances and not the `issue’ of notice. If a particular provision requires issue of notice within a stipulated period

ITO, Ward- 24(3), New Delhi vs. Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8656/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

Meena Swarup, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee to produce evidence before him to ensure that the tax is paid in accordance with law. The section makes it clear that service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act within the time limit prescribed is mandatory and it is not a mere procedural requirement. At this ... objection vide letter dated 16-11-2009 objecting to the issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act without valid service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Taking note of the said letter the Tribunal, in our view, rightly held that the proviso to section