← 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

Chukhu Tajo, Itanagar vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 42/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

that the Leamed CIT(A) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer which was assumed without mandatory service of notice u/s 148. 4. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer was wrong to have completed the reassessment proceedings making addition

Chukhu Tajo, Itanagar vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 41/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

that the Leamed CIT(A) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer which was assumed without mandatory service of notice u/s 148. 4. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer was wrong to have completed the reassessment proceedings making addition

Chukhu Tajo, Itanagar vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 40/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

that the Leamed CIT(A) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer which was assumed without mandatory service of notice u/s 148. 4. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer was wrong to have completed the reassessment proceedings making addition

Chukhu Tajo, Itangar vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 39/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

that the Leamed CIT(A) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer which was assumed without mandatory service of notice u/s 148. 4. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer was wrong to have completed the reassessment proceedings making addition

Chukhu Tajo, Itanagar vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 38/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

that the Leamed CIT(A) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer which was assumed without mandatory service of notice u/s 148. 4. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer was wrong to have completed the reassessment proceedings making addition

Chukhu Tajo, Itanagar vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 37/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

that the Leamed CIT(A) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer which was assumed without mandatory service of notice u/s 148. 4. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer was wrong to have completed the reassessment proceedings making addition

Anil Kumar Parekh, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Dhamtari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anil Kumar Parekh C/O. Madhu Traders, Station Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan: Akepp0240E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

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 ... this case, reassessment has been completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act but the ratio of the said judgment regarding non- service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act applies also to the facts of the 8 Anil Kumar Parekh Vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari assessee’s case

Savitri Devi, Bhojpur vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 571/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 68

justified in counting cash deposit as undisclosed income without counting the parallel withdrawl? II. Whether A.O was justified in not ensuring the proper service of notice upon the appellant? III. Whether A.O. truly compared the cash deposit before declaring it as not in line with the past account behaviour

Altret Industries Private Limited, Saiyedpura Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 855/SRT/2024[2016-201]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2016-201

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Entrepreneurship (supra), Chhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service of notice was a disputed question of fact due to which the notice was not quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Since the order

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officxer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 818/SRT/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Entrepreneurship (supra), Chhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service of notice was a disputed question of fact due to which the notice was not quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Since the order

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 816/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Entrepreneurship (supra), Chhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service of notice was a disputed question of fact due to which the notice was not quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Since the order

Altret Industries Private Limited, Altret House, Saiyedpura vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 815/SRT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Entrepreneurship (supra), Chhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service of notice was a disputed question of fact due to which the notice was not quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Since the order

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 814/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Entrepreneurship (supra), Chhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service of notice was a disputed question of fact due to which the notice was not quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Since the order

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 810/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Entrepreneurship (supra), Chhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service of notice was a disputed question of fact due to which the notice was not quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Since the order

Babu Rao Sahukari, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 327/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.327/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Babu Rao Sahukari Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(5) 24-107-54/1 Visakhapatnam – 530020 C/O. Srikar Sai Medical Agencies Andhra Pradesh Gonthivanipalem Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530026 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Efnps1341E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Muralidhar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69ASection 69C

order and not as per procedure laid down under "Faceless assessments" & shall be by FAO only, and there was no service of notice for the variations proposals since the same is a mandatory condition for completing the assessment proceedings u/s 151A. 9. The Ld AO(NFAC) had erred in applying

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

response, the assessee was required to furnish its return of income within 30 days from the date of service of notice but the assessee did not file for which the assessee was again notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 13-07-2021 requiring the assessee to file its return ... enable the assessing officer to assess the income Objection No.(3) The assessee has challenged the date of service of notice u/s,148 dated 31.03 2021, which was served on the assessee on 01.04.201 by stating that the provisions of the Act amended by the Finance Act. 2021 applicable

Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) Shreenath Bungalows Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Full Stop Society Motera, Chankheda Link Road Gujarat. Pan : Dvfpk 8773 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nitin Pathak, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

passed a speaking order under section 148A(d) dated 31.03.2022, concluding that income had escaped assessment, and issued notice under section 148. Despite service of notice, no return of income was filed. Initially, the assessment proceedings were transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), but were subsequently returned

Nanesh Finance Corporation, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 86/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

Maheswar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the assessee has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) due to non-service of notice. The learned CIT(A) has simply sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/sec.271AAB of the Act, without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing

Nagankesy Venkata Reddy, Sangareddy vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 230/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A) also, despite service of notices u/sec.250 of the Act, the assessee did not chose to appear nor furnished any documentary evidences in support of his claim. Therefore, the learned

Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur

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

ITA 260/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.257/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.259/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.260/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Maleckunnel Philip Varghese Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur At/Po/Ps: Ainthapali, Dist : Sambalpur-768004 Pan No. :Abvpv 8418 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh P.K.Mishra & Baidyanath Behera, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025

For Appellant: Sh P.K.Mishra & Baidyanath Behera, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153C

being contrary to the statutory provisions is not sustainable in the eye of law. (ii) In absence of issue of service of notice u/s.153C of the Act, assessment order is null and void. (iii) In absence of recording of satisfaction note, impugned assessment order is ab-initio void ... present case, being passed u/s 143(3)/144 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In absence of issue of service of notice u/s.153C of the Act, assessment order is null and void. From the page 37 to 38 of the paper book, and from the order sheet