“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

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

ITA 625/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

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

ITA 624/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

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

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

ITA 623/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

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

Shobha Yadav, Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Knp-W

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

ITA 278/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

For Appellant: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

show "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, despite her candid declaration of illiteracy, lack of access to email, and absence of physical service of notices circumstances beyond her control. 1 A.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav 5. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to consider the settled position in law that ... technicalities should not defeat meritorious cases. 6. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 without proper service of notice as mandated under the Act, thereby vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings. 7. That the reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 196/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

penalty order to be set aside.” “1. Prayer to Set Aside the Penalty as the Quantum Order Was Passed Ex-Parte Without Proper Service of Notice The penalty order is a direct consequence of an ex parte assessment under section 144, which was passed without valid service of notice upon

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT (A), Sagar

ITA 195/JAB/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

should be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above ground the CIT Appeal as well as assessing officer ought to be verified the service of notice for imposition of penalty in such a circumstance where assessment order was passed ex parte u/s 144 of the income tax act causing initiation

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

Herkuldip Singh, Vpo Butari vs. ITO Ward 4(2) Asr, Amritsar

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

ITA 673/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Bhatia, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee to represent the case and nothing is discussed in the body of the order regarding any submissions filed or any issue of service of notices on the assessee. 8. As such, we find that the principles of justice has been violated in this case and we remand the matter

The Vazhayoor Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Trirur

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed

ITA 580/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharythe Vazhayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant No.D1989, Head Office, Azhinhlam P.O., Ernad, Malappuram Dist., Kerala-673632 [Pan: Aacat 5682 J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Cooperative Society Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Nfac, Delhi [For Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 19.06.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under The Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Member & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Member. The Return Of 2 The Vazhayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For The A.Y. 2014-15 Was Filed On 30/03/2015 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-3, Tirur (For Short, ‘Ao’) Vide Order Dated 19/12/2016 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 1,72,40,710/- By Disallowing The Claim For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act By Holding That The Appellant Is A Cooperative Bank & Hit By The Provisions Of Section 80P(4) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)

before us in the present appeal. When the appeal was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite due service of notice of hearing, therefore, after hearing ld.Sr.DR we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits based on the material on record. 5. We have

The Mundur Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward-2, Palakkad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 576/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. When appeal was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing ld.Sr.DR, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits based on material on record. 5. We heard the ld.Sr.DR

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ajara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1693/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1138 & 1693/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Main Branch, Nalawade Building, Main Road, Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aadca1779J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.03.2024 & 13.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Quantum Appeal I.E Ita No.1138/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69

assessing officer but the assessee chose not to reply to any of the notices. It was further submitted by Ld. DR that the service of notice was made through delivery status that the notice was duly served upon the assessee. Accordingly it was contended by Ld. DR that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ajara, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1138/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69

Aditi Mitra, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 25/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 183Section 282Section 68

accepting declared income. The assessee also mentioned in her condonation petition that the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without service of notices as contemplated under the provision of section 282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and section 144B

Danieli and C Officine Meccaniche Spa, South Delhi vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1(1), It, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2509/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2021-22 Danieli & C Officine Acit, Circle1(1), It, Meccaniche S P A Kolkata Vs Unit No.302, 3Rd Floor, Manisha Building, Plot No.75- 76, Nehru Place South Delhi, Delhi – 110019. (Pan: Aabcd9695E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumyadip Roy Choudhry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 282A(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

Ravi Doreswami, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1192/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Ravi Doreswamy, Vs. Ito, No.28/1, 17Th Cross, Kanakanagar R T Nagar Ward – 5(3)(1), Post Raichur. Bangalore – 560 032, Karnataka Pan : Ajmpd 8501 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Vivekprasada P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri.Vivekprasada P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

relied on the order of lower authorities. Considering the rival submissions, the assessee could not represent his case for want of proper service of notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) as explained by the assessee. In the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file

Mallard Securities Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 837/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishramallard Securities Private Vs. Ito Limited Ward-16(2) 2055-56, 3Rd Floor, Gali No. 6, C. R. Building, Chunna Mandi, Pahar Gunj, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aahcm6940R Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Richa Gaharwar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 68

vide order dated 31/01/2023, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. 4. None appeared for the Assessee even after service of notice. Therefore, we deem it fit to decide the present Appeal on hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower

ITO, Ward- 18(1), New Delhi vs. Nester Trading Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 5684/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 68

time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 2. At the outset, it is noted from the record that despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, nor any ITA No.- 5684/Del/2017 Nester Trading Pvt. Ltd. adjournment request was sought for. From the bare perusal ... company for AY 2024-25 and so, It is evident from the record that the respondent did not appear before the ITAT despite service of notice and there is no any reason available on record regarding prolonged absence of respondent. 5. Accordingly, on the basis of aforesaid fact situation

Moureen Camara, Panaji vs. Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi

ITA 200/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 200/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Moureen Camara Lonic Apartment, 1St Floor, Albamar Road, Tiswadi, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Abmpc9038M . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057640303(1) Dt. 02/11/2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Stemmed From Assessment Order Dt. 20/09/2021 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 5A

then assessing officer is left with no option but (i) either to accept such returned income without variation or (ii) service of notice u/s 143(2) of the before resorting to scrutiny for making any variation to such summarily processed returned income in advancing to reassessment. 10. It is well ... Moureen Camara Vs NFeAC ITA Nos.200/PAN/2023 AY: 2016-17 16. The Revenue’s plea that by participation appellant waived-off service of notice in our considered view has no legs to stand because the appellant’s participation in proceedings cannot be sacrosanct for the assumption jurisdiction. In the case

The Kerala State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

before us in the present appeal. 5. When appeal was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing ld.Sr.DR, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 6. It is submitted thatLd.PCIT, Thrissur vide proceedings dated 04/03/2020