“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

Raymond Vishal, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 792/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250Section 271A

impose any obligation to appear. 3. Notices were also issued in August 2023 and November 2023 (two on the same date). 4. Improper service of notices – though Form 35 declared the correct email as onlinelta@gmail.com, the initial notices were . Page 3 of 5 wrongly sent to raymondvishal@gmail.com. Later notices were

Jayakar Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 41(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 3528/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayakar Shetty, Ito Circle 41(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, Sai Krupa Chandvarkar Kautilya Bhavan, Cross Road, Kandivali West, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aanps 8452 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 68

cannot be termed as ex-prate. An order having been passed by prate. An order having been passed by the CIT (A) after service of notices on the assesse the CIT (A) after service of notices on the assessee, there is no e, there is no question of failure

Gopal Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2194/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

assessee before 10 years/file the income tax return and who are no longer in the service of the assessee. Without proper service of notice under section 148, all proceedings are null and void." 3. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. A perusal

Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT (16) (1) Delhi, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1862/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.1862/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Microsoft Corporation (India) P. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacm-5586-C बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), Central Revenue Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ip Estate, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, (Through Vc) & Parth, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2022, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Nageswar Rao, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That, At This Stage He Is Confining His Submissions To Ground No. 1 Of Appeal

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageswar Rao, (Through VC) &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “आई ”, िद"ी "ी महावीरिसंह, उपा"" (तृतीयसद"), "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी "जेश कुमार िसंह, लेखाकार

Satya Enterprises, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Satya Enterprises Ward No.3, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Adcfs1415L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 292B

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

Arun Namdev Keni, Taloja vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 366/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.366/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Arun Namdev Keni, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Panvel. At Pethali, Taloja, Panvel- 410208. Pan : Amgpk2155A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Adjudicating On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

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

appeal before this Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of 3 hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing

Abhishek Builders and Developers, Pune vs. ACIT Circle Panvel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2726/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol khairnar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

neither been issued nor served validly. 3. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the service of notice u/s. 143(2) by affixture without addressing the objections raised by the Appellant through its written submission dated 26/06/2023. 4. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred ... valid notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has been served upon the assessee. We will firstly take up the legal issue regarding the service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. We note that the assessee has filed return of income on 4 M/s. Abhishek Builders and Developers

Fatima Convent Association, Warangal vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 918/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 12A

Form No.10AB filed on 28.09.2023. No communication, however, was sent to this email ID. ITA No.918/Hyd/2025 9 In our considered view, non-service of notices on the email ID furnished in Form No.10AB has deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to represent its case and submit requisite details

Star Ceramics, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1064/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala & Shri Hemasundar Rao P., CAsFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69A

obtaining administrative approval u/s. 151 of the Act. The assessee was also directed to file return of income within 30 days of the service of notice which was not complied with. Subsequently in response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act compliance was made. The ld. AO found that

Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur vs. Babudeen & Party, Jaipur

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 322/JPR/2025[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2000-2001

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

sent by Id. AO were never delivered to any of the erstwhile members of the assessee AOP nor Id. AQ admitted service of notice on any particular person. For this very reason, Id. AO, after completion of the assessment, started sending penalty and other notices at the address of undersigned

Babudeen and Party, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 6(1), Jaipur

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 128/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

Mohit Kapoor Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Jao the Income Tax Officr Ward 2(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging the validity of reassessment u/s 147, the service of notice, and the addition of Rs.10,77,850/- u/s 69A on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits. 3. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the above ... holding that the assessee had not cooperated during assessment as well as appellate proceedings, despite repeated opportunities. The grounds regarding reopening, approval, and service of notice were dismissed, and the addition was sustained for want of evidence. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred

Rajeshkumar Natubhai Patel, Piplag Nadiad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 1395/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalrajeshkumar Natubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Matru Chhaya, Piplag Ward-5, Chokdi Petlad Road, Piplag, Nadiad. Nadiad-387255. [Pan :Ahppp4940 G]

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Panchal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

assessment through a penalty notice in March 2020, the assessee filed an appeal on 10.04.2020, specifying the AR’s email for service of notice. The Ld. AR submitted that the notices u/s 250 issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were not received by the AR, and the assessee was outside

Dineshwar Prasad, Sarvadya Kamla Apartment, Boring Road vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna, Not Known

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

ITA 250/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.250/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dineshwar Prasad.………………………. …………………....Appellant Sarvadya Kamla Apartment, An Path, North S K Puri, Boring Road, Patna - 800013. [Pan: Acwpp8473C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Patna…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S.P Singh, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.02.2023 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 749 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 250Section 69

that may be filed in support of his case. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) promptly upon service of notice, and not to seek unnecessary adjournments and failure to comply may result in adverse inference as the ld. CIT(A) will deem

Girish Chandra, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4(3), Patna

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

ITA 615/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.615/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Girish Chandra……………………………. …………………....Appellant S/O Harsukh Rai Vyas, Nai Sarak, 11/A Devaki Complex, Chowk Patna City, Patna-800008. [Pan: Afrpc1879H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Patna……..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pradeep Kr., Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 250Section 69A

Bipin Kumar, Vaishali vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Vaishali

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

ITA 463/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.463/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bipin Kumar….……………………………. …………………....Appellant Patepur Paura Kartaha Vaishali Bihar 844117, Bihar-844117. [Pan: Bnepk5098Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Vaishali.…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Shankar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued For Calling Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18. However, The Assessee Failed To Furnish His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year In Question Either U/S 139 On Or Before 31.03.2018 & Failed To Furnish Itr In Response To Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Later On, The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Has Deposited Total Cash Amounting To Rs.83,67,203/- In His Bank Account During The Demonetisation Period. As There Was No Compliance On Behalf Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Treated The Entire Cash

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

that may be filed in support of his case. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) promptly upon service of notice, and not to seek unnecessary adjournments and I.T.A. No.463/Pat/2024 Bipin Kumar failure to comply may result in adverse inference

H. Srinivas Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 629/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundar P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

letter as 08.01.2021 is incorrect. e) Whether the demand notices were sent to the correct address, and if so, provide the date of service of notices. It is submitted that Notice u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee was also received by the AR during the assessment proceedings. The contention ... Revenue has not discharged its burden of proving proper dispatch within time as per manual procedure and postal regulations. The alleged service through notice server is irregular and invalid under section 282 of the Act and Rule 127 of Income Tax Rules. Even at the time of hearing