“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

Bhatia Medicos, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-(3)1_, Jalandhar

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

ITA 688/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. Anil Miglani, Adv

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

specifically mentioned in Form No. 35. In support of his contention he submitted screenshots from the income tax portal as a proof of service of notice in wrong e-mail id. He has also submitted an affidavit of one of the partner Mr. Kanwaljit Singh who stated that no notice ... assessee to present his case before the ld. CIT(A) on account of non- 6 I.T.A. No. 688/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 service of notice. As such, he prays for reasonable opportunity of being heard to present his case. 9. The ld. DR has no objection if the matter

Maa Sharda Corporation, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.135/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maa Sharda Corporation 16A, Raj Vatika, Baloda Bazar Road, Samariya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aasfm4607R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 142(1)Section 282

categorically explained by the Hon’ble High Court. To substantiate further the genuineness of such fact and contention qua non service of notice to assessee, Ld. AR furnished a notarised affidavit dated 30.04.2024 duly signed by the assessee stating that “such notice was not received by me at any time ... PCIT”. 14. Backed by aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR advanced the argument that since the department was unable to establish that service of notice was not done following the prescribed procedure or mode of service as prescribed in the Act, the same is akin to no due despatch of notice

Kvc Infrastructures, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 266/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 124(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 249(3)Section 282Section 44A

without prior notice of jurisdictional change from DCIT, Circle 3(1), violating Section 124(3) and principles of natural justice. 3. Invalid Service of Notices: Notices and the assessment order were sent to an unregistered email ID, violating Rule 127 and Section 282 of the Income- tax Act. 4. Failure

Rajendrakumar Raojibhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 61/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalrajendrakumar Raojibhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Lambu Faliyu (Long Street), Ward-1, Narsanda, Nadiad. Chaklasi Town, Kheda-387345. [Pan :Asgpp3043 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 148Section 156

outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was unable to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) owing to the service of notices issued to the email address not being updated by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 325/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

that "Due to repeated non-responsiveness, the case was handled under the Faceless Assessment Scheme and referred to the Verification Unit for physical service of notices. A show-cause notice and a draft assessment order were issued, but the assessee did not file a response." Considering the above, the ground

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 324/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 323/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 322/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Bimal Kumar Drolia, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 347/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147(6)Section 148Section 250Section 34

submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that he was not pressing the additional ground regarding service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. This issue also arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel ... wherein it was held that section 34 of the 1922 Act, conferred jurisdiction on the ITO to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundations of jurisdiction. The High Court, accordingly, quashed the notice for reassessment issued

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1293/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

justice it would be appropriate to remit this case to Ld.AO for readjudication on merits after ascertaining the correct date of issue / service of notice u/s 148 and in line with prescription of section 153(2) of the Act. The order of lower authorities is therefore set aside. The Ld.AO

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1292/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1291/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1290/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 487/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya Vs. Ito, 101 Gandamaya Apartment Ward – 2(2)(1), Matrukrupa Society, Kamrej Surat Charrasta Opp. Azim Hospital, Tal: Kamrej, Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahzpp1276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 40

hearing the assessee in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to non-service of notice to the e-mail Id, ‘ca.mihirthakkar@gmail.com’, mentioned in the Form 35. The assessee had specifically mentioned that the notice/ communication may be sent

Varsha Jain, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 240/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 249

proceeding u/s 148 is bad in law and Facts. 6. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in not considering that without issue and service of notice u/s 148 passing of order u/s 143(3) 147 is bad in law and facts. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has erred ... considering that without service of notice u/s 143(2), reassessment proceedings is bad in law and facts. 8. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that without servicer of notice u/s 142(1) reassessment proceeding is bad in law and facts. 9. Whether there is any delay

Yogesh Hanumantrao Joshi, Pune vs. DCIT Circle - 12, Pune

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

ITA 956/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 6Section 90

Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382). 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for despite due service of notice of hearing. However, assessee has filed written submission along with paper book stating that based on written submissions and the paper book, issues raised

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Swami Shanti Prakash Ashram Trust, Thane

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

ITA 1488/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative referring to the grounds

Umesh Pandey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 2566/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: 09.07.2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

bank transactions. 4. The assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 is bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of proper service of notice and opportunity of being heard. 5. The addition of ₹33,78,400/- u/s 69A and ₹25,62,182/- as income from business is arbitrary

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2550/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : : : : (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the Act, the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of the date of service of notice related to the intimation order. The appellant's reason for delay can be accepted at face value only if the dispute between

Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2549/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)