← 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

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax.) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

ShriChetan Gupta vs. ACIT(2014) 160 TTJ 0009 (Del)For valid assumption of jurisdiction to frame a reassessment, a proper and valid service of notice u/s 148 on assessee is mandatory Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. requirement violation the same of will result in quashing of the reassessment proceedings. Assessee ... entities will not detract the fact that notice was not served on assessee. During the course of reassessment AO was intimated about non service of notices u/s 148 and 143(2) but AO failed to take cognizance of assessee’s intimation and objections. From the assessment record, remand reports, field

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

ShriChetan Gupta vs. ACIT(2014) 160 TTJ 0009 (Del)For valid assumption of jurisdiction to frame a reassessment, a proper and valid service of notice u/s 148 on assessee is mandatory Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. requirement violation the same of will result in quashing of the reassessment proceedings. Assessee ... entities will not detract the fact that notice was not served on assessee. During the course of reassessment AO was intimated about non service of notices u/s 148 and 143(2) but AO failed to take cognizance of assessee’s intimation and objections. From the assessment record, remand reports, field

Muthyala Suryababu, Bengaluru vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 854/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT DR
Section 14Section 263Section 55

Section 33-B merely requires that an opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee and the stringent requirement of service of notice under Section 34 cannot, therefore, be applied to a proceeding under Section 33-B." (Page 827-828). [Note: Section 33-B and Section

Narayansinthy Gajendra Patro, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not respond, despite service of notices on 4 occasions through ITBA portal i.e., dated 11.01.2024, 14.02.2024, 06.03.2024 and 12.03.2024 u/sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in absence of any documentary evidences

Philips International B.V, Kolkata vs. ACIT(I.T), Cir-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Philips International B.V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Tax (International Taxation), Bengal Intelligent Park, Building Circle 2(1), Kolkata Omega, 13Th & 14Th Floor, Room No. 210, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Block-Ep & Gp, Sector-V Salt Aaykar Bhavan, Poorva, 110, Lake Electronic Complex, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Kolkata-700091 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp4065J Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 282(2)

referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e.the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The Id. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from

Vijay Joshi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Further, the assessee is a salaried employee and Form-16 had the address of the employee which could have been used for proper service of notice. Thus, the facts and circumstances did not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee

Gol Damjibhai Nathabhai (HUF), Amreli vs. ITO, Ward -3(1)(4), Amreli

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

ITA 452/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

MAPCaN asp Wale aAMaAnlS AaHle | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified ... amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the Id. CIT(A) NFAC has erred

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified ... amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the Id. CIT(A) NFAC has erred

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified ... amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the Id. CIT(A) NFAC has erred

M/S Mansoori Service Station, Dausa vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOONTANAT M EMEBER, DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMEBER

For Appellant: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, C.AFor Respondent: MRS. ANITA RINESH, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

mentioned in Form No.35 anuhal@kalanico.com and thus, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution without service of notice on either of the e-mail id’s as per record available in the Column No.17 of Form 35. 5. From the above ... back to AO to pass denovo assessment order after granting adequate opportunities of hearing to the assessee by effective and proper service of notices as the email ids updated on record. No doubt the assessee shall cooperate with the assessment proceeding by timely compliance to the notices. 6. Accordingly

Shanti Satyadev Mishra, Santacruz Vakola vs. Assessing Officer, Piramal Chamber Parel

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3 of appeal are allowed for

ITA 4574/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shanti Satyadev Mishra Ito - 22(3)(1), Mumbai C-603 Building No. 3, Khandwala Sra Scy, Vs Dattamandir Road, Vakola B Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400055. [Pan: Arepm0794J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)

taken by him is also incorrect. (3) Both the assessment and appeal were decided without giving proper opportunity of hearing and without proper service of notices. Shanti Satyadev Mishra (4) The appellant reserves right to add amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal as above.” 2. Rival

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Christi Jain, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.465/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Christi Jain C-67, August Kranti Marg, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-110049 Pan: Abopv3621R ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 124(3)Section 127Section 144Section 148

remand report that the assessee did not raise objection over jurisdiction issue before the A.O within one month from the date of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, hence, the assessee was prevented by Section 124(3) of the Act to agitate on the issue, following the principles

Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Assessing Officer, Jamnagar, Gujarat

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

ITA 503/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Khetiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

MAPCaN asp Wale aAMaAnlS AaHle | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Sudhakar Akutota, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1068/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1068/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Sudhakar Akutota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Abapa0044M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sudhakar Akutota (“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 05.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 296 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorised

For Appellant: Shri A. V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Hyderabad for family reasons. It was submitted that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte on 05.06.2024 without adequate service of notices and the assessee came to know about the impugned order only on 03.06.2025 upon receiving his counsel’s communication dated 30.05.2025. Immediately thereafter ... further submitted that in column No.17 of Form No.35, the assessee had clearly given his address for service of notices. However, no notices were served by the Ld. CIT(A) on such address. He argued that the assessee thus had reasonable cause for not attending before

Haripriya Tekupally, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Txn - 2, Hyderabad

In the result appeal ITA

ITA 787/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P R SureshFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad, SV, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

reason that the deeming provisions of the said statutory provision only cure the infirmities in the manner of service of notice and is not intended to cure the complete absence of notice itself. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... dated 31.12.2019..; AND (c). that as the deeming provisions of Section 292BB of the Act only cure the infirmities in the manner of service of notice and is not intended to cure the complete absence of notice itself, therefore, the non-issuance of notice

Gangaram Reddy Tekulapalli, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Int Taxn- 2, Hyderabad

In the result appeal ITA

ITA 786/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P R SureshFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad, SV, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

reason that the deeming provisions of the said statutory provision only cure the infirmities in the manner of service of notice and is not intended to cure the complete absence of notice itself. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... dated 31.12.2019..; AND (c). that as the deeming provisions of Section 292BB of the Act only cure the infirmities in the manner of service of notice and is not intended to cure the complete absence of notice itself, therefore, the non-issuance of notice

Akhilesh Singh Bhadauria, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Akhilesh Singh Bhadauria, Vs Ito, A-19, Ground Floor, Ward-58(2), Ghazipur Village, Delhi. Delhi – 110 096 Pan: Altpb9329H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 69A

House No 50,4 Floor Garwhali Mohalla, Delhi-92 4. We find that the assessing officer has erred in not making proper service of notices to the assessee. Admittedly, the address of the assessee as per ITBA database is A-19, Ground floor, Gazipur, Delhi-110096. The assessing officer

Harjeet Singh Chhabra, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raipur (Erst. ITO-1(3), Raipur)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Harjeet Singh Chhabra H. No.84, Las Vista, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adkpc0408P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 4

available on record. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the department has failed to furnish any proof as regards the service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to the assessee. It is settled legal position that the issuance of notice u/s.143(2) is sine ... 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

Antar Singh Mewada, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

ITA 416/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiantar Singh Mewada, Cit(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, Nfac, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi Po Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (Pan:Bompm3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

order. During the appellate proceedings the appellant was given opportunities to put forth his case, but he did not upload any response despite service of notice(s). Considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case no interference with the order of the AO is called for. The appellate