← 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

Satya Parkash Shokeen, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4897/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

supported the order of the CIT(A) submitting that as many as 11 notices were issued, however, in the impugned order mode of service of notices and observations about due knowledge of notices to the assessee are not mentioned. Thus it will be fair to give assessee an opportunity

Satya Parkash Shokeen, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4896/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

supported the order of the CIT(A) submitting that as many as 11 notices were issued, however, in the impugned order mode of service of notices and observations about due knowledge of notices to the assessee are not mentioned. Thus it will be fair to give assessee an opportunity

Satya Parkash Shokeen, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4895/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

supported the order of the CIT(A) submitting that as many as 11 notices were issued, however, in the impugned order mode of service of notices and observations about due knowledge of notices to the assessee are not mentioned. Thus it will be fair to give assessee an opportunity

Satya Parkash Shokeen, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4894/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

supported the order of the CIT(A) submitting that as many as 11 notices were issued, however, in the impugned order mode of service of notices and observations about due knowledge of notices to the assessee are not mentioned. Thus it will be fair to give assessee an opportunity

Satya Parkash Shokeen, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4893/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

supported the order of the CIT(A) submitting that as many as 11 notices were issued, however, in the impugned order mode of service of notices and observations about due knowledge of notices to the assessee are not mentioned. Thus it will be fair to give assessee an opportunity

Hakam Singh, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Sangrur, Sangrur

ITA 1130/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1130/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Hakam Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward - Sangrur Advocate, Vs. #527, Sector 10D,Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bdwps5185E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

reason for delay in filing the appeal being army personnel posted in Srinagar having connectivity issues in the area as well as non-service of notice at the correct address and as such the order passed arbitrary and unjustified. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Dahyabhai Purshotamdas Chauhan, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

ITA 728/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 132Section 144Section 254(1)

amount of bogus purchases from bogus entitles was disallowed and same was also upheld?" 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing on more than two occasions as well as through the office of learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR). Notice sent through

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2092/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. J. AsraniFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250

observed that the ld. CIT(A) has directed the ld. AO to verify the assessment records and to provide proof of service of notice u/s. 148 as the same was also not reflecting in the ITBA portal. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that neither notice u/s. 148 nor Section ... relied upon by the assessee, where the Hon'ble High Court held that the violation of service of notice u/s. 148 is a fundamental infirmity and not mere irregularity which is not curable u/s. 292B of the Act and that the onus is upon the revenue to substantiate that

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 250Section 69A

electronic form by the Authority in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282 of the Act specifies the mode of service of notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act. A conjoint reading of the above two sections would make it clear ... provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 250Section 69A

electronic form by the Authority in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282 of the Act specifies the mode of service of notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act. A conjoint reading of the above two sections would make it clear ... provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 250Section 69A

electronic form by the Authority in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282 of the Act specifies the mode of service of notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act. A conjoint reading of the above two sections would make it clear ... provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 250Section 69A

electronic form by the Authority in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282 of the Act specifies the mode of service of notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act. A conjoint reading of the above two sections would make it clear ... provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 250Section 69A

electronic form by the Authority in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282 of the Act specifies the mode of service of notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act. A conjoint reading of the above two sections would make it clear ... provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 250Section 69A

electronic form by the Authority in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282 of the Act specifies the mode of service of notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act. A conjoint reading of the above two sections would make it clear ... provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4148/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 250Section 69A

electronic form by the Authority in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282 of the Act specifies the mode of service of notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act. A conjoint reading of the above two sections would make it clear ... provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4147/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 250Section 69A

electronic form by the Authority in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed. Section 282 of the Act specifies the mode of service of notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act. A conjoint reading of the above two sections would make it clear ... provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated

M/S Raju Upadhyay, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.475/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2011-12) Raju Upadhyay, B-5/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaqpu-9644-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Ward-34(2), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Shubham Jha & Sahil Upadhayay, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 23.10.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Shubham Jha, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Document Writer In The District Courts, Delhi. The Assessee Entered Into An Agreement To Sell Dated 05.05.2010 With Vardhman Business P. Ltd. For Sale Of Agricultural Land Admeasuring 68 Bigha 10 Biswa (14.25 Acre Approximately) Situated At Village Sabhapur, River Belt, Delhi For A Total Consideration Of Rs. 10,45,50,000/-.

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham Jha & Sahil UpadhayayFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 68

making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has provided following email id for service of notice to the assessee: “upadhayaysahil@gmail.com” The AO shall serve notice to the assessee on the said email id. The assessee shall respond to the notice

Barun Kumar Chand, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Barun Kumar Chand, At-College Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Road, Jagannathpur, Dist: Ward, Bhadrak Bhadrak-756100 Pan/Gir No. Adppc 8074 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakdraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02//07/2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim kr Chakdraborty, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings despite service of notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act.. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income

Aries Minerals Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1) Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 187/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Aries Minerals Pvt Ltd., Plot Vs. Dcit, Circle -1(1), Bhubaneswar. No.924, Nigamananda Nagar, Lane-2, Bomikhal, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Aajca 2114 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.2.2014 In Appeal No.Cit(A)-1, 14573/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year. 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 320 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Stating That Against The Order Passed By Ld Cit(A) Dated 13.2.2024, The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR

should have been filed on or before 12th April, 2024 but due to seizure of operation of the company and online service of notice, consequential orders and non-verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the A.R. of the assessee, the appeal could

Balibai Badrilal Mukati, Barwani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sendhwa, Sendhwa

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 920/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 147Section 250(6)

/jahagir.k@rediffmail.com although the assessee has specifically mentioned email address: ca.anjad@gmail.com in the space provided in Form No. 35. Therefore, due to non-service of notices at proper email address, the assessee could not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A), which has led to the passing of *ex-parte* order