“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

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 259/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

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

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

Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 854/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 54B

Whether notices/ communication may be sent on mail?” in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A). Thus, the assessee opted for physical service of notices but the CIT(A) did not adhere to the request of assessee. It is also noteworthy that the non-service of notices through physical mode

Poonam Sen, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range 1(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 70/LKW/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 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)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee on this point. Further, he pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court had held that any dispute regarding the service of notice had to be raised within one month of such service and in the present case, the assessee had not filed any objection regarding jurisdiction in response

Incometax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Haresh Dayashankar Shrivastav, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 684/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year : 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, Haresh Dayashankar Shrivastav, Vs Ward 3(3)(1), 35, Swetanjali Society, Nr. Ahmedabad Hasubhai Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan : Bbpps 5719 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arsh Shaikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri Arsh Shaikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

well as non-filing of return by the assessee for this Asst. year 2017-18 during his life time voluntarily and inspite of service of notice u/s.142[1] of the Act. Further Ld CIT[A] relied upon the case laws which are clearly not applicable/distinguishable to the facts ... wherein it was held as under:- “7. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that before service of notice under section 142(1) Shri Keshavlal Somnath Panchal had already expired. His legal heirs did not file return for this assessment year. Therefore, the right

Madanlal Mohanlal Hingad, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 575/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Madanlal Mohanlal Hingad Acit, Cpc Cell – Tds / Room No. 31 & 32, Wadi Mansion, Vs Ito, Ward – 20(1)(1) G.R. Road, Hindmata, Dadar, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400014. Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012. [Pan: Aaaph5096B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

modify all or any of the above ground at the time of hearing.” 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the service of notice of hearing of appeal of more than three occasions by way of e-mail provided by assessee at the time of filing this appeal ... before Tribunal. No application for condonation of delay is filed by assessee despite issuing defect memo by the registry of this Tribunal. Despite services of notice of hearing, the assessee has not come forward either personally or through authorised representative to explain the delay or to substantiate various grounds

Cicc Automation Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 6500/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Cicc Automation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward – 12(1)(4), G-401, 4Th Floor, Gokul Heaven, Thakur Vs Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Complex, Kandivali East, Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400101. Mumbai – 400021. [Pan No. Aaccc4389B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act. 1961". 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the service of notice on more than three occasions. Perusal of record shows that ld. AR of the assessee appeared on 14.05.2025 and sought adjournment vide application dated 22.03.2025. Even

Pratik Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 405/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 403, 404 & 405/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Dimple Warlyani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

reflected in e-proceeding tab on 04.07.2021, meaning thereby the proceedings have been completed without valid issue of notice as well as valid service of notice. The re-assessment order have been passed without a valid notice u/s 148 and therefore the re- assessment order passed

Pratik Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 404/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Dimple Warlyani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Pratik Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 403/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Dimple Warlyani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani, Jamnagar vs. The Assessement Unit NFAC Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 141/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani बनाम The Assessment Unit, National Steet No.2, Near Navnala, Faceless Assessment Center, Income /Vs. Gulabnagar Tari Hanuman Tax Department Road, Jamnagar-361007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ascpv 1519 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 18.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “Reopening U/S 148A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) 1. The Learned The National Faceless Appeal Centre [“The Cit(A)”] & The Assessment Unti, Income Tax Department (“The Ao”) Erred In Fact & In Law In Initiating Proceedings U/S 148 Of The Act Without Issuing Notice U/S Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

141/RJT/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani 4. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that delay was because of unawareness about service of notice on the portal. The assessee did not have any knowledge of impugned order passed on 18.06.2024. It was stated that assessee had no intention

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

125/PUN/2024, has held that issue of notice on ITBA portal is not a valid method and manner of service of notice, as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation ... Entrepreneurship vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below

Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd., Fortuna Tower vs. ITO 5(3), Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 1066/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1066/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd. …………………....Appellant 23A, Ns Road, 11Th Floor, Room No.53, Kol-1. [Pan: Adcpa8526G] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Kolkata……..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kr. Singhal, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2024 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 358 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. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.50,050/- Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

that may be filed in support of its case. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Id. CIT(A) promptly upon service of notice, and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Failure to comply may result in adverse inference 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Sonea Dhir, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32 (1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3073/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 50C

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

Sujata Mahendra Nawander, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 3, Jalna

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

ITA 1568/PUN/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sujata Mahendra Nawander, V The Income Tax Officer, 19, Manmohan Vidya Nagar, S Ward-3, Jalna. Mantha Road, Jalna-431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeppn7756M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshit S Kabra – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)

found or seized any incriminating document or cogent supportive evidence regarding on money paid by me. 2. Legality of Order passed without service of notice under IT Act,1961. The learned Assessing Officer has passed the Assessment Order without service of notice is not legal

Poladpur Taluka Prathamik Shikshak Sahkari Patphedhi Maryadit Poladpur Shik, Poladpur, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1457/PUN/2025[2016 - 17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative. 2 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental ... 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 assessment order of the AO is called

Manaksia Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

binding effect on the department, but not on the Court. This circular clarifies the requirement of law in respect of service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude even for the purpose of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, for the determination ... 292BB has already been made explicit in the aforementioned decisions of the Allahabad High Court. That provision would apply insofar as failure of "service" of notice was concerned and not with regard to failure to "issue" notice. In other words, the failure of the AO, in re- assessment proceedings

M/S. Vedika Credit Capital Ltd., Ranchi vs. ITO, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 377/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

order of the Ld. CIT(A) and find that the assessee has not responded to any of the above notices despite proper service of notice of hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the consistent failure to respond during the appellate proceedings reflects lack of diligence and disregard

Chandrashekhar Dinkar Chavan, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Mumbai

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

ITA 2193/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chandrashekhar Dinkar Chavan Ito, Ward-27(1)(1), Room No. 3667, Bldg. No. 105, Vs Vashi Rly. Station Commercial Near Hanuman Temple, Tilak Nagar, Complex, 406, Tower-5, Vashi, Chembur,Mumbai-400089. Navi Mumbai, [Pan No. Acipc1075B] Maharashtra-400703 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 145Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 28Section 69A

reasonable opportunity. The assessee, while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), provided email of his Chartered Accountant / Consultant for the purpose of service of notice that is wadyekarcoaudit@gmail.com who has not informed the assessee about fixing of date of hearing nor he has attended such proceeding. Resultantly

Nilesh Purshottam Ghodasara, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 92C

mind as to the sources for investment in the property by the appellant nor has provided opportunity to the appellant with proper service of notice and providing time line to a non-resident assessee during the reopened assessment proceedings. 4. Ground No. 4: On the facts and in the circumstances