← 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

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai vs. CIT(Appeal), Piramal Chamber

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

ITA 2548/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

Diamond Concrete Structures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, substantial

ITA 2324/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Diamond Concrete Structures Private Ito – 6(2)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Sunder Apartment, Nesbit Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Mazgaon Circle, Mumbai – 400010. Churchgate, [Pan No. Aadcd6138N] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee submits that as per guidelines of CBDT, the assessee while filing first appeal specifically provided the email address for the purpose of service of notice, order and other communication. 5. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that ground of appeal raised by assessee is covered

Shanti Devi Jain Memorial Trust, Muzaffarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ghaziabad

ITA 2760/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 1Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Ld. AO and sub-Section 1 of Section 148 the mandates to service of notice to the assessee before the Ld. AO proceeds to assess/reassess and re-compute escaped income. Further that Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe

Satish Kumar, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6154/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshsatish Kumar Bhiwani, Vs. Ito, Village Nathuwas Po Ward No. 2, Paluwas, Bhiwani, Bhiwani Haryana, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Axt[L7397N Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chander Jindal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chander Jindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

Income Tax Act on the assessee in accordance with law and the assessment made consequent thereto is liable to be quashed. Service of notice is not only a procedural requirement that is a mandatory requirement for valid initiation. Therefore the assessment made

Nadathara Grama Vikasana Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 426/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

would have been remitted to the file of NFAC, however from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice of hearing appears to have been issued nor reasonable opportunity was given by the NFAC. Further, there is no evidence that proper notices u/s.143 ... through Nadathara Grama Vikasana Co-op. Society Ltd. 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

Nadathara Grama Vikasana Co-Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 425/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

would have been remitted to the file of NFAC, however from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice of hearing appears to have been issued nor reasonable opportunity was given by the NFAC. Further, there is no evidence that proper notices u/s.143 ... through Nadathara Grama Vikasana Co-op. Society Ltd. 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

The Kangazha Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Kangazha vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 Thiruvalla, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 414/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kangazha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kangazha P.O., Kottayam 686541 [Pan: Aadat7325H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 03.10.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Kangazha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 26.09.2018 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 1,49,79,478/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-2, Thiruvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.03.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 1,49,70,478/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P By Holding That The Appellant Society Is Engaged In Activities Other Than The Activities For Which It Was Formed.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)Section 80P

delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. 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. 7. We find that the learned

Opengrad Edu Foundation, Kozhikode vs. CIT(Exemption), Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2025[Na]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2024-25 Opengrad Edu Foundation .......... Appellant 2/400/Bm, Firdouse House, Kozhikode, Near East Block Of Nit, Chathamangalam, Kozhikode-673601. Pan: Aaeco1702C Vs. Cit (Exemptions) .......... Respondent Kochi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Exemption) dismissed the application. 3. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of service of notice. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal after hearing the Ld. CIT-DR. 4. We heard the Ld. CIT-DR and perused the material available on record

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

duly served upon him within the prescribed time. Furthermore, the assessee has not raised any objection regarding the service of notice at any stage prior to the completion of the assessment. 20 Jaiprakash Yadav vs. ITO Ld. DR, therefore, based on the report of the AO supported the case

Jugal Kishore English Wine Shop Village Telka Tehsil Salooni Distt Chamba Himachal Pradesh, Chamba vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Dalhousie Income Tax Office Banikhet Distt Dalhousie, Chamba

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 269/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

cancelled. 3. That the order passed u/s 144 by the AO was bad in the eyes of law as there was no service of notice. The notice should have been served on the assessee through notice server or electronically as well as through Postal Services in view of CBDT Circular ... considered opinion that the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act suffers from legal infirmity due to non-service of notice in accordance with the procedure laid down by the CBDT Circular dated 15.11.2017and particularly in relation to the availability of opening cash balance of Rs.23

Himland Constructions Engg., Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 4, Patiala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 188/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 188/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Himland Constructions The Ito, Engineering, बनाम Ward-4, Sco 128-129, Patiala Vs. Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaefh6688K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vibhor Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 44A

circumstances of the case by passing an ex-parte order in a mechanical manner. Further the Ld CIT(A) fails to assure the service of notices on the appellant before proceeding to pass an ex- parte order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.58

Jurimatrix Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 92/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Girish, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144Section 156Section 234ASection 234BSection 263Section 270A

ITA No.92/Bang/2025 Jurimatrix Services India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Purna Agencies Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2642/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

parte order passed by CIT(A). The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee provided email id ‘subhvani@yahoo.com’ for service of notices, whereas, the notices were being sent by the CIT(A) on the email id ‘purna.agencies2013@gmail.com’. The said email id was non functional at that time, hence ... served on assessee as they were sent on email id different from the one which was specifically mentioned in Form No. 35 for service of notice. Without commenting on merits of the issues raised in appeal, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back

Karia Realty, Pune vs. ITO Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1367/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1367/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 40

passed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. 2. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 2 Karia Realty 3. Assessee has raised following grounds

Kalavathi Devi Sharma, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1519/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 68

dated 10.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 2. When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. A perusal of the record indicates that in the past assessee had failed to appear on the following dates of hearing viz.19.09.2024

Smt. Venkata Leela Bhavani Nimmagadda, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 661/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 147

older e-mail ID, which was not in use at the relevant time. Further, at para no.17 of Form no.35, the address for service of notice was correctly mentioned, but no notices were served at that address. As a result, the assessee remained unaware of the notices issued ... regular use and therefore, the assessee may not have received the notices issued electronically. Furthermore, at para no. 17, the postal address for service of notice was correctly given, but the assessee has submitted that no physical notice was served at that address. In these circumstances, we are inclined

Ashish Sindwani, Nilokheri, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1607/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1607/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Ashish Sindwani, Nilokheri, C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Dtnps-9951-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered Accountant Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Two Counts:- “(I) Confirming Addition Of Rs.24,77,940/- U/S. 69A Of The Act, On Account Of Cash Deposits During The Period Of Demonization; &

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 44Section 44ASection 69A

filer. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee to file return of income for AY 2017-18. Despite service of notice neither any return of income was filed nor any reply was sent by the assessee. Repeated notices were served on the assessee, the assessee

Sh. Irshad Ilahi, Dehradun vs. ITO, W- 1(3), Dehradun

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

ITA 80/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Appellant also paid the Appeal Fees of Rs. 1000 in terms of Section 249(1)(iii) on 24.1.2018 (i.e. within 30 days of service of Notice of Demand) but since her Mobile Number was not linked to the Aadhar Card, electronic furnishing of the Form 35 could not be made

Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

income. We perused the order of assessment and relevant para no. 3.4.1 says that notice issued, but order is silent on the service of notice upon the assessee and also it was not clear how the notice sent to be assessee electronically or manually the assessee has no knowledge about

Seastem Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT Cir - 1, Jamnagar

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

ITA 334/RJT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 334/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Seastem Limited, Jamnagar Vs. Acit, Cir-1, Jamnagar 1 Avani Appartment, - Sarusection Road Income Tax Office, Jamnagar – 361001 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahcs9428G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 271B

assessee was not aware of online proceedings going on before the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee. There was no service of notice or impugned order through physical mode upon the assessee, therefore, the assessee did not have any information about fixation of hearing or passing