“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

Young Womens Christian Association, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer, Expemtion Ward, Tvm, Thiruvanathapuram

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

ITA 274/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the appeal was called upon, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, despite due service of notice. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the learned Senior DR. 7. I heard the learned Senior

Kadavath Ahmed Reyas, Kasaragod vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kasargod

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

ITA 265/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 282(1)

revealed from the order of the CIT(A) that the notice is served through ITBA portal, which is not a valid method of service of notice, as held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions ... wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to the provisions of sec.282(1) of the Act, held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to the file of AO for de novo disposal of the appeal. 4 ITA No.265/Coch/2025. Sri.Kadavath

Ram Niwas Yadav, Shahpura vs. Income Tax Officer Behror, Behror

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

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the case against the appellant without ensuring the service of notices to the appellant and proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. Thus, the CIT(A) order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deserve to be quashed ... proceedings were ever served upon the appellant physically but was only uploaded on the income tax portal which is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That, further it is submitted that, appellant has preferred the appeal

Sunrise Realconsultancy Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

ITA 1308/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

this regard it is submitted that the assessee could not filed its financial statement before the Learned Assessing Officer due to non-service of notice u/s 148 or 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But during the course of appellate proceedings the assessee submitted computation of income

Sunrise Realconsultancy Private Limited, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1307/JPR/2024[2013-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

Late Smt. Savitaben Patel Education Charitable Trust, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 130/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S N Divetia, AR. &For Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, SR-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

appreciating that there could not be compliance to the notices claimed to be issued because there appears from IT Portal that no such service of notices was made on email. Moreover, the appellant is running activities in a very small village: Boriavi wherein it is difficult to avail the services

Income Tax Officer, Salisbury Park vs. Sangram Vishwasrao Kachare, Wadgaosheri

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1986/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Rander &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Revenue itself on the ground of having low tax effect. The third Cross Objection raised by the assessee relating to non-service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has not been argued by the Ld. AR before us and therefore dismissed as not argued/ pressed. Ground

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Delhi vs. Artistic Finance Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

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 ... section (2) of Section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing

Spin Packaging Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 165/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 165/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order without physical service of notice as the assesse specifically mentioned on Form 35 that no notice should be served or communicated on E- mail. The order passed ... without proper service of notice is invalid and deserves to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the A.O. where in the A.O. has erred in making disallowance of Rs.51

Vinod Laljibhai Vadsola, Timbadi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Morbi

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

ITA 939/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 939/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vinod Laljibhai Vadsola Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vill. Timbadi, Tal: Morbi- Morbi-363 641 Vs. 363 641 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alnpv 3995 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Cit(A)”, Dated 09.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” Dated 25.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Holding Assessment Proceedings As Valid Through: A. The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been Issued By The Ito, Ward-1, Morbi In Violation Of The Provisions Of Sec. 151A Of Act & The Ita No. 939/Rjt/2024 A.Y.17-18 Vinod L. Vadsola

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 69A

Income Tax Tribunal, without further delay.” 4. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that delay was because of unawareness about service of notice on the portal. The assessee did not have any knowledge of impugned order passed on 09.08.2024. It was stated that assessee had no intention ... admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit. 7. The Ld.AR submitted on behalf of assessee that there was no service of notices on the appellant and Ld. CIT(A) issued the notices on the e-mail i.d of the ITBA portal but same was remained unserved

Rameshwardas Shivcharandas and Company, Nanded vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 524/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.524/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282

service as per mandate of section 282 of the Act. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside. Service of notice by the Ld. AO on non-existence email ID 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment is invalid ... appellant denies service of notices. The appellant submits that the notices were issued on non-existence email Id as: "abc@abc.in" as appearing on the notices issued which clearly were not served on registered email Id. The proceedings may kindly be held as invalid and bad in law. 3 Rameshwardas Shivcharandas

Osman Mohammed, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 292/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144

bank account before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). The assessee did 5 ITA.No.292/Hyd./2025 not appear due to non-service of notice as claimed by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further claims that the assessee has collected evidences to substantiate

Shri Naveen Kumar Gupta, Haridwar vs. ACIT, Hardwar

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

ITA 28/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Shri Naveen Kumar Gupta, Acit, D-6, Arihant Vihar, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, P.O. Gurukul Kangri, Circle-1(3)(1), Hardwar, Uttarakhand. Vishnu Garden, Hardwar, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Ahvpg7849R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to provide the correct e-mail address and the address for service of notice and cooperate with the appeal proceedings before the Ld.CIT(Appeals). With these observations this appeal is restored to the file

Ashutosh Kumar Prabhat, Arrah vs. PCIT-1, Patna

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

ITA 564/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 154Section 263

That in *CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh* [(1971) 82 ITR 888 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the service of notice under Section 263 is not in accordance with the law, it cannot be said that the assessee has been given a proper opportunity to put forward

Shri Vighnahar Ganpati De vs. Than Trust, Punevs.CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 353/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2025

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

appeal before this Tribunal. 3. When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the able assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative and material available on records

Priyanka Prashant Kate, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as ‘Withdrawn’

ITA 827/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil

Section 144Section 250

arising out of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2018 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, assessee has filed letter dated 30.04.2025 intimating that she has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and has submitted Form

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

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

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

Sushila Devi Jangid, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 374/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

For Appellant: Shri Utkarsh Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR a

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250

demand initiated upon the assessee for A.Y 2010-11 may please be deleted. 3. GROUND NO. 3: Order u/s 147 passed without proper service of notices to the assessee; Order u/s 147 not available on the portal: 9 SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JANGID VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

S R Automobiles, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1269/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

assessee's appeal on ground that assessee did not wish to pursue appeal, since revenue failed to bring any evidence to prove actual service of notice of hearing on assessee, 12 S.R. Automobiles, Jaipur requirements of procedure as mentioned in Section 250(1) and (2) could not be said