“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

Krishnendu Bikash Jana, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 1105/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to which the Ld. DR vehemently objected. Further, the assessee had also disputed the service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which also has been addressed by the Ld. CIT(A) only on the basis of the content

Late Satish Mehta Thru Lh Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 34(4) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4646/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 159(3)Section 2(7)

taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) has held as under: "Sec. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for (Service of notice) - A.Y.2012-13 - An information was received by A.O. that assessee had deposited certain amount in his bank account source of which was not explained A.O. thus ... instant petition challenging validity of said notice by contending that it was issued subsequent to death of assessee and, thus, statutory requirement of service of notice had not been fulfilled - Whether in Page 6 of 9 ITA No. 4646/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] Late Satish Mehta Vs.ITO absence of a statutory

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Subs. (2) of s. 148 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 ... 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

Prakash Kumar Kshatriya, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgoan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

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

Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (4), Raipur

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 122/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

material available on record, the assessee has not raised objection over the jurisdiction before AO within one month from the date of service of notice u/s. 142(1) for change of incumbency dated 28.09.2017, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to raise objection over the jurisdiction ... material available on record, the assessee has not raised objection over the jurisdiction before AO within one month from the date of service of notice u/s. 142(1) for change of incumbency dated 28.09.2017, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to raise objection over the jurisdiction

Babubhai Joitaram Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Cent-1, RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15&23/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Babubhai Joitram Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ 9 Suvas Colony St Xaviers High Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, School Road. Gujarat-380 014 Central Circle –1, Rajkot, Income Tax Officer, Amruta Estate Building, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdpp5355 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 153CSection 250

deceased-assessee was served upon legal heir who, then, participated in proceedings, said legal heir could not be deprived of right to challenge service of notice. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Sheela Devi, 64 CCH 186 ( Del-trib), held that if show cause notice

Babubhai Joitaram Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Cent-1 RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 153CSection 250

Padinjarethil Shamsudheen, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

ITA 358/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

ought not have made the best judgement assessment without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Further, it is submitted that service of notice through ITBA portal is not a valid service. However, after giving 4 opportunities the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non prosecutoin. 6. Being ... issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre trough ITBA portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income

Padinjarethil Shamsudheen, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pathmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

Pharmacon, Kochi vs. DCIT, Non Corp, Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 229/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pharmacon .......... Appellant 35/2977, B 5, First Floor, Shopping Complex Pallinada, Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aalfp0115C] Vs. Dcit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 37

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. However, the appellant had filed written submission stating

M/S Jas Super Market, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-4, Kannur

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

ITA 265/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jas Super Market .......... Appellant Kuttukkan Complex, National High Way Taliparamba, Kannur 670141 [Pan: Aaffj1720P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 262Section 40

present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that the CIT(A) issued notice through email. There is no proof of service of notice of hearing on the appellant. When there was no response to the notice issued through email, it is the duty of the CIT(A) to serve

Abdul Rahiman Thirikode Chellan, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 5, Palakkad

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

ITA 90/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Rahiman Thirikode Chellan .......... Appellant Maruthoni House, Naduvathapara Post Peringottukurushi, Palakkad 678574 [Pan: Beqpc8956Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-5, Palakkad .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Padmanathan K.V., Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

notices without disclosing the details as to when the hearing 4 Abdul Rahiman Thirikode Chellan notices were issued and the mode of service of notices, etc. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) had not given reasonable opportunity to the appellant to explain the case

Ms. Geeta Bhatia, Khanna vs. Inome Tax Officer, Ward-5, Khanna

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 895/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 895/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Geeta Bhatia, The Ito, House No. 25, Narottam Nagar, Vs Ward-5, Near Railway Crossing, Khanna. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajopb6752B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sayyam Garg & Ms. Anmol Gupta, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sayyam Garg & Ms. Anmol Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

bank statement, rather straight away issued the notice. He drew our attention towards relevant part of Rule 127, which reads as under : 127. Service of notice, summons, requisition, order and other communication. .(1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the addresses (including the address for electronic ... addressee to the income-tax authority or any person authorized by such income tax authority. 11.2 He prayed that for want of proper service of notice upon the assessee, this assessment order is not sustainable. 11.3 The ld. DR, on the other hand, contended that on the available address, notice

Dhanpati Wife of Sh. Gaje Singh Defence Colony, Gali No.3 District Kathal, Haryana vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee, on merit, is allowed

ITA 866/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

following grounds: "1. a). That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal with regard to service of notice u/s 148 and which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. b). That the notice u/s 148 had never been served upon ... assessee concerned as it has been returned to the Assessing Officer concerned and, thus, the contention of the LD. CIT(A) about the service of notice is not correct. c). That since the notice u/s 148 is a jurisdictional notice having not been served, the proceedings as initiated

Sevantilal Bhaichand Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 3761/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 250(6)

Kanchanben Sevantilal Shah, the assessee spends most of his time in his home town in Rajasthan and thus assessee was unaware about the service of notice and therefore could not file submissions. 4. On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. Be that

Shabana Parvez Malim, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2015-16 Shabana Parvez Malim, Ito, Ward-31(2)(1), B-403, Atlantic Sagarcity, Kautilya Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Vp Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400098. Mumbai-400058. Pan : Bpxpm9611Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohd. Shahabkhan Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. ShahabkhanFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

compliance. Further, her husband was also not in India and working in abroad. However, the appellant did not agitate on the issue and service of notices. The appellant had not submitted or responded to the notices but only requested for adjournments. It is for the appellant to respond ... along with this Appeal Filing 5.2. Therefore, it is apparent from record that the Appellant in fact did agitate on the issue and service of notices. The Appellant did mention that her husband who resides in New Zealand whose email is submitted on the Income Tax Portal

Guru Datt Sharma, Palwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

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

ITA 3414/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla (Through VC)For Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250

assessee. A perusal of Form No. 35 reveals that in column no. 17, the assessee has mentioned email address ‘rmassociates80@gmail.com’ for service of notice. 3. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal for non prosecution. The provisions of section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred

Surender Singh Chauhan, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2931/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2931/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Surender Singh Chauhan, Village Karhera, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh 2010007 Pan: Adypc-6319-D बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 2(2)(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 20100 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 04.03.2025, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Reveals That The Cit(A) Had Issued Notices To The Assessee On Four Occasions I.E. On 13.01.2021, 21.10.2024, 05.11,2024 & 18.02.2025. However, It Is Not Emanating From Impugned Order As To On Which Email Id The Notices Were Being Sent To The Assessee. A Perusal Of Form No. 35

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250

assessee. A perusal of Form No. 35 2 reveals that in column no. 17, the assessee has mentioned email address fcayogeshgoyal@gmail.com for service of notice. 3. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal for non prosecution. The provisions of section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

reasons for re-opening , the manner of issuing notice u/s 148 as well as 142(2). According to him, there was no proper service of notice upon him nor any notice was served u/s 143(2). All these pleas have duly been noticed by the CIT (Appeals) and thereafter, these ... Appeals). Finding of the CIT (Appeals) reads as under : “3.6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. As regard the issue of service of notice u/s 148 and notice u/s 142(1) is concerned, it is evident from the facts on record and from the detailed report

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A