← 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

Vishnu Shekuji Gajare, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 706/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishnu Shekuji Gajare, V The Income Tax Officer, Chikalthana, Jalna Road, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Aurangabad, Chikalthana I A, Chikalthana Industrial Area S.O, Maharashtra – 431006. Pan: Azppg9504M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 28.01.2025 For The A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld.

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 288Section 69A

order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). During the hearing on 08.05.2025, we directed ld.DR for the Revenue to submit evidence of service of notice and service of assessment order. This fact is also recorded in the order sheet. Ld.DR filed a letter of the ITO dated 14.05.2025 wherein ... valid and sufficient reason for delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) as assessment order was not served on assessee. The service of notice and service of assessment order goes to the root of the issue. We have already mentioned that ld.DR could not explain us how and when

Taro, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Panipat

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

ITA 1352/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1352/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Smt. Taro, C/O J B Sharma, Advocate, 72, Bmk Market, Nr Hotel Hive, G T Road, Panipat, Haryana 132103 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Alspt-7680-C बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Panipat, Haryana 132103 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 22/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 06.05.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 216 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal Supported By An Affidavit. After Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Present Appeal Is Un-Intentional & Was For The Reasons Stated In The Application

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

written submissions filed before the Tribunal is that none appearance of the assessee before CIT(A) is on account of none service of notice. 6. Considering entire facts of the case and documents on record, I deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the AO for denovo assessment ... affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 4 7. The assessee shall provide her address/email id for service of notice to the AO within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The AO shall serve notice to the assessee