← All Phrases

“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
75
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
73
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
68
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
68
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
63
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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5335/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

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

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5334/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

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

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5333/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Triyugi Narayan Dwiwedi, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1, Rewa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Triyugi Narayan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer Ward No.03, Bramhan Tola Ward-1 Dhari Khadda, Semariya Distt- Kothi Compound Becides Rewa-486001. Family Court, Rewa- 486001. Pan: Bhbpd4469B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 56Section 69A

case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that uploading notices under sec. 142(1) on registered mobile ID is valid service of notice is unjustified, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside

Sharwan Kumar Daruka, Amarpur, Banka vs. CIT(A), Patna

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

ITA 253/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, thereby sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has now preferred appeal before this Tribunal, raising multiple grounds. The primary contention is that the order of the learned CIT(A) is ex parte and passed without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, another opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate his claim. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR su

Section 144Section 153C

other hand, the learned DR supported the order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee repeatedly failed to appear despite service of notices, and hence the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record

Sharwan Kumar Daruka, Amarpur, Banka vs. CIT(A), Patna

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

ITA 252/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, thereby sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has now preferred appeal before this Tribunal, raising multiple grounds. The primary contention is that the order of the learned CIT(A) is ex parte and passed without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, another opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate his claim. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR su

Section 144Section 153C

other hand, the learned DR supported the order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee repeatedly failed to appear despite service of notices, and hence the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee where the service of notice issued u/s 148 and consequent assessment framed u/s 147 was challenged. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming ... assessment u/s 147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return of his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to make the assessment u/s 147. In the present case as evident from the assessment order, AO issued

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee where the service of notice issued u/s 148 and consequent assessment framed u/s 147 was challenged. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming ... assessment u/s 147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return of his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to make the assessment u/s 147. In the present case as evident from the assessment order, AO issued

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

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 recompute escaped income. Sec. 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the AO that the income chargeable

Shri Vardhaman Sthanakwasi Jain Shrawak Sangh, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1912/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1912/Pun/2025 Shri Vardhaman Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Sthanakwasi Jain Shrawak Sangh, 1 Guru Ganesh Bhavan, Paavan Tapodham, Near Shivaji Statue, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aahts5220K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.05.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 80G(5) Of The It Act. 2. There Is Delay Of 8 Days 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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after hearing Ld. DR. 6. We have heard

Sulochana Devi Bagaria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1211/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1208 To 1211/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sulochana Devi Bagaria..……………………………………….……….……Appellant 200, Bangur Avenue, Block-A, Kol-700055. [Pan: Aebpb4214J] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 148Section 250

revenue. Therefore, Hon’ble High Court Delhi was of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Apart from this, in this case, legal representative also intimated about the death of Manju ... Goel to the ld. Assessing Officer through Income Tax Portal, but it was not accepted and there is no service of notice. Apart from this, even before the 1st appellate proceedings, the appellant/legal heir brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(Appeals) about the death of the assessee

Sulochana Devi Bagaria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1210/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1208 To 1211/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sulochana Devi Bagaria..……………………………………….……….……Appellant 200, Bangur Avenue, Block-A, Kol-700055. [Pan: Aebpb4214J] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 148Section 250

revenue. Therefore, Hon’ble High Court Delhi was of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Apart from this, in this case, legal representative also intimated about the death of Manju ... Goel to the ld. Assessing Officer through Income Tax Portal, but it was not accepted and there is no service of notice. Apart from this, even before the 1st appellate proceedings, the appellant/legal heir brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(Appeals) about the death of the assessee

Sulochana Devi Bagaria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1209/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1208 To 1211/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sulochana Devi Bagaria..……………………………………….……….……Appellant 200, Bangur Avenue, Block-A, Kol-700055. [Pan: Aebpb4214J] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 148Section 250

revenue. Therefore, Hon’ble High Court Delhi was of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Apart from this, in this case, legal representative also intimated about the death of Manju ... Goel to the ld. Assessing Officer through Income Tax Portal, but it was not accepted and there is no service of notice. Apart from this, even before the 1st appellate proceedings, the appellant/legal heir brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(Appeals) about the death of the assessee

Sulochana Devi Bagaria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1208/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1208 To 1211/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sulochana Devi Bagaria..……………………………………….……….……Appellant 200, Bangur Avenue, Block-A, Kol-700055. [Pan: Aebpb4214J] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 148Section 250

revenue. Therefore, Hon’ble High Court Delhi was of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Apart from this, in this case, legal representative also intimated about the death of Manju ... Goel to the ld. Assessing Officer through Income Tax Portal, but it was not accepted and there is no service of notice. Apart from this, even before the 1st appellate proceedings, the appellant/legal heir brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(Appeals) about the death of the assessee

The Chennai Co-Op. Societies Employees Co-Op. and Society Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 151ASection 263Section 80ASection 80P

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

Sh. Ashok Kumar, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalashok Kumar, Assessment Unit, 19, Sitapur Mazara, Jwalapur, Income Tax Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Vs. Department. Pan-Btupk9604E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10271519 Dated 10.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Agriculturist Having No Any Other Source Of Income Than Agricultural Income. Since, The Income From Agricultural Operations Is Exempt From Tax, He Was Not Obliged To File The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited A Sum Of Rs.76,00,000/- In Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Initiated Reassessment Proceedings In The Case Of Assessee By Recording Reasons That Income To The Extent Of Rs.76,00,000/- Has Escaped Assessment In The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act. Accordingly, Notices U/S 148 Was Issued On 26.03.2022. In Response To Which Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 12.04.2022 Ashok Kumar Vs. Ito Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- From Agriculture Activity & Claimed The Same As Exempt From Tax. The Assessing Officer Passed The Reassessment Order Wherein He Has Made The Additions On Account Of Agriculture Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources & Further Made Additions Of Rs.76,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited During Demonetization As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act. The Ao Further Made Additions Of Rs.2,67,195/- As Against Nil Income Declared Towards Bank Interest.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing

Income Tax Officer, Dwarka vs. Amarsang Murubha Sumaniya, Village Nageshwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue(in ITA No

ITA 350/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

comes in the ambit of tax effect of CBDT Circular vide Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024.None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of notice of hearing of this appeal. 3. The CBDT has issued Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, whereby the monetary limits for filing of appeals

Surinder Kaur Through Legal Heir Sh. Ajay Partap, Dhalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kullu

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 500/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

before any of lower authorities. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR raised various legal arguments including service of notice on dead person. The Ld. Sr. DR contended that no such information was provided on the web portal which would enable Ld. AO to serve

Puneet Kulthia, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI