“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cirlce- 5(4), Mumbai vs. Prithvi Realtors and Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 6690/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Prithvi Realtors & Hotels Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-5(4), Vs. 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Room No. 427, Anant Kanekar Marg, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra (East), G Block, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Bandra (E), Pan : Aaccp6911E Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43B

assessee in spite of the notices being issued from time to time, the assessee been informed telephonically on 15-12- 2025 and thereafter service of notice were done through e-mail and speed post also. The Ld. DR was also asked to serve notice physically on the assessee

Turna Cold Store Through C/O Sh. Rohitb Arora., Shahkot vs. Incomev Tax Officer Ward, Nakodar

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

ITA 100/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nirmal Mahajan, C. A

Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

appellate order. 8. Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal praying for an opportunity of hearing on the ground of non-service of notice from the appellate office and as evident from the appellate order (para 4.1) all notices has been issued in the ITBA portal and none has been

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Shanmuganathan Devasenapathy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for

ITA 3880/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3880/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Che-W-(112)(3) V. Shanmuganathan Chennai-600006 Devasenapathy 6E Thiruvallulvar, Nagar Tondiarpet, Chennai 600081 [Pan:Afzpd 2010 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

addition of Rs.4,34,08,237/- was made to the appellant’s total income u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the matter in the absence of the assessee. 4. In the present case

Akansha Yogesh Deshmukh, Bpcl Staff Colony vs. ITO/DCIT International Taxation Mumbai, Income Tax Building

ITA 8949/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

this, the AO issued notices only to a Mumbai address, which does not exist in any tax records of the assessee. The alleged service of notices is therefore invalid, and the entire reassessment is void ab initio. ITA No. 8949/Mum/2025 Akansha Yogesh Deshmukh 7. Reassessment Order Invalid for Want ... Proper and Valid Service: The reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is bad in law as no valid service of notice u/s 148, 142(1), or 143(2) was effected upon the assessee at any of her registered addresses, nor were notices served on her registered email

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 2 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Kimiya Engineers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8120/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

genuineness of purchases remained unsubstantiated, the entire amount claimed as expenditure ought to have been brought to tax. 3. Despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, since the entire material necessary for 3 ITA No. 8118-8120/Mum/2025 Kimiya Engineers Pvt. Ltd., adjudication

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 2 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Kimiya Engineers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8119/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 2 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Kimiya Engineers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8118/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Kanahiya Lal Politechnic, Roorkee vs. ITO, W-1(3)(2), Haridwar

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

ITA 86/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Kanahiya Lal Polytechnic Vs Nfac, Delhi/ Dehradun Road, Roorkee Ito, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Uttarakhand-247667 Lines, Roorkee, Pan-Aabak4938M Uttarakhand--247667 Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tilak Raj, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/110417665 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 22.03.2023, On The Basis Of Information Available With The Department That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Inr 1,39,81,145/- In Union Bank Of India During The Financial Year 2015-16. The Assessee Society Has Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. Thereafter, Statutory Notices Were Issued From Time To Time To Provide The Assessee An Opportunity To Substantiate Its Claim By Submission Of Documentary Evidences. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Despite Of Many Opportunities, Assessee Failed To File Any Reply Or Documentary Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. In Absence Of Information & Documentary Evidence Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,86,27,053/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Section 10Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

evident from assessment year 2015-2016 and exempt under sec 10(23c) (iii ab). 6. That the Statute provides for proper service of notice whereas notices were not received and an application for the purpose moved to the ITO to provide information was not responded to, till today. 7. That

Sri Gudibandi Somi Reddy Educational Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Guntur

ITA 533/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक

Shaikh Naim Gulab Shaikh, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 3076/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3076/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shaikh Naim Gulab Shaikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of Sk. Gulab Sk. Gamir Ward-2(1), Jalgaon Kela Suppliers, 2725, Chandni Chowk, Budhwar Peth, Savda-425502 Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Maharashtra Pan : Basps5568N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available records, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua the assessee. 2 Shaikh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2542/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2541/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Darshana Jatin Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7769/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

payment in subsequent year and non- grant of TDS credit. 7. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions, on the issue of service of notice, observed that notices were uploaded on the portal and alternate modes of service as per CBDT SOP were not followed. It was held that ... despite getting convinced that the notices were not served to the appellant and the assessment order suffers from legal infirmity. That non-service of notices u/s. 148A(b), 148 and order u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, renders the entire re-assessment proceedings as illegal

Rajesh Tyagi, Ambah vs. ITO Ward 1, Morena

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

ITA 618/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment order passed in pursuance thereof is liable to be declared void-ab- initio. 6. BECAUSE in the absence of valid service of notice under section 148, the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act is bad in law, invalid and void-ab-initio

Manohar Singh, Jaisalmer vs. ACIT/Adic, Circle, Barmer

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 726/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemanohar Singh Acit/Dcit, Circle, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Barmer 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Biqps 5344 J Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal By Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 19.07.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Impugned Order Passed In Gross Violation Of Natural Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 250Section 250(1)

merely enabled the communication window on the portal on 04.11.2022 which was no stretch or imagination construed as a valid service of notice of hearing as contemplated u/s 250(1) of the Act. He contended that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on 06.12.2024 i.e. after

Vimarsh Prakashbhai Vasavada, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara, Gujarat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

ITA 2653/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234BSection 234CSection 271ASection 54FSection 69A

erred in fact and in law in sending the notice of hearing to an old email address and thus there was no valid service of notice. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in passing the order without granting proper opportunity of being heard. Vimarsh Prakashbhai

Megha Kishor Dalvi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 955/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.955/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Megha Kishor Dalvi, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune 27 Amruta Apartment, Sinhagad Road, Anandnagar Manik Baug, Pune-411051 Pan : Ajopd8763C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

sufficient cause for non-compliance. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Order u/s 147 in absence of service of notice u/s 148A and 148 is invalid and void ab initio. 2 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the service of notice

Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2576/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 158Section 250

filed the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act within 30 days from the date of service of notice u/s 148 of the Act upon the assessee. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2013 disclosing total loss ... 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

Dharambir, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4860/DEL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year 2014-15 Dharambir Vs. National Faceless Assessment H. No.227, Pandwala, Centre, Delhi Kalan, Najafgarh, New Delhi Pan No.Agypy8801D Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Manpreet Singh Kapoor, Ca Sh. Rajendra Singh Rathoe, Advocate Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 68

erred in law in upholding the assessment order, despite the fact that the assessment proceedings were conducted without proper service of notice. The notice was issued to an incomplete and Incorrect address, lacking essential particulars such as the house number, and merely mentioning the village and state, thereby depriving

Shree Gajanan Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer 1, Satara

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

ITA 3161/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3161/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Gajanan Mahila Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Ward-1, Satara Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P. Vahagaon, Tal. Karad, Satara 415110 Maharashtra Pan : Aahas3528D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)