“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

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 2360/PUN/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

shall furnish the reply to any communication under sub-paragraph (2) in such format as may be specified by the Director General. 10. Service of notice or communication.— (1) The service of a notice or order or intimation or any other communication by the Cell may be made by delivering

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 2359/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the

ITA 2357/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, Chh Sambhajinagar vs. Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the

ITA 2356/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

Thota Raghu Buchanna, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 542/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Thota Raghu Buchanna Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-15(2) [Pan :Aftpt6248K] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Vinod, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 22.12.2014, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,93,210/-. The Assessment Has Been Subsequently Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) On The Ground That As Per

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

loan u/s 68 of the Act. Since the assessee has explained the reasons for not appearing before the Ld.CIT(A), because of non-service of notice to the correct e- mail address provided in Form No.35 and further the Ld.CIT(A) did not discuss the issues on merits

Sree Hara Vividoddesha Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Davanagere

Appeal of the assessee are hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate

Section 144

proceedings, and bona fide reasons. 3. In addition to the above, it is also noticed that the assessee has specifically prayed for physical service of notices, whereas the hearing notices from the ld. CIT(A) were issued through email communication, which appears not to have reached the appropriate hands

Suresh Ashwathsastry Madamuthanahally, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2556/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is further submitted that the delay was inadvertent and unintentional, arising due to the lack of proper service of notice. The assessee has prayed that, in the interest of justice and equity, the delay may be condoned. 4. On perusal of the records

Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-15(3), Delhi

ITA 1808/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

That the sanction accorded without application of mind is an invalid sanction and the re-assessment so made be annulled. 2. No valid Service of Notice on the appellant: i) That the CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making ... Delhi as per documents attached. Computation of income, ITR acknowledgment dated 01.11.2004 order u/s 143(1) of 2006. iii) That there was no service of notice on the appellant, resulting in his inability to represent his case. iv) That the re-assessment made without valid service of notices

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Billet Procon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1382/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 68

ITA Nos.1382/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2984/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

The Central Financial Credit and Investment Co Operative India Ltd, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 282/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Credit and Investment Cooperative India Limited 5. 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. Sr. DR. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

complimentary to s.147. Sub-s. (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 recomputed escaped income. Sec. 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe

Yazaki India Employees Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer 12(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 911/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.911/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of record, I find that the sole grievance of the assessee is that

Subhashchandra Radhakishan Chechani, Jalna vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 360/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.360/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

r.w.s 254 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 2. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of record, I find that the assessee has failed to furnish

Renu Kumari, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Ranchi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 497/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.497/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Kumari...………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Qtr. No.B/824, Sector-Ii, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. [Pan: Adlpk4316K] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. Thereafter, Notice 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued Directing The Assessee To Submit Relevant Details. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Found That During The Period Of 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017, The Assessee Had Made Deposits Amounting To Rs.31,67,857/- In Her Bank Accounts. Due To Lack Of Any Explanation Or Reply, The Assessing Officer Treated Rs.31,67,857/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Added The Same To The Assessee’S Total Income.

Section 250Section 69A

perusing the materials available on record, find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex parte order without ensuring proper service of notices thereby denying the adequate opportunity to present the case by the assessee. We also find that the notices sent

Khurshid Alam, Bokaro vs. ITO Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 496/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.496/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Khurshid Alam.………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Jhirkey, Kathara, Bokaro, Jharkhand-829116. [Pan: Ahxpa0635P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 540 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,38,770/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

available on record, find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex parte order I.T.A. No.496/Ran/2024 Khurshid Alam without ensuring proper service of notice thereby denying the adequate opportunity to present the case by the assessee. We also find that the notices sent

Mm Import and Export, Muvattupuzha vs. Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 364/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mm Import & Export .......... Appellant 709E, Avoly Panchayat, Adooparambu Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam 686661 [Pan: Aaofm2699B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Export & Import Of Timber. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1, Thodupuzha (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 12.12.2016 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) After Making Addition Of Rs. 4,19,849/-

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. On a mere perusal of the assessment

Cheekkilode Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 353/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheekkilode Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Cheekkilode, Atholi, Kozhikode 673315 [Pan: Aaaac8251E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [Cit(A)] Dated 30.11.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 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 Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Return

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. 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. 6. We notice that the issue relates