“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

Vikram Shikshan Sanstha Sevakanchi Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward2(1) Kolhapur, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.291/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P

challenging the order passed by ld.CIT(A). 5. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, considering that the issue raised in the instant appeal has been decided by this Tribunal in catena of decisions we proceed

Spaco Technologies India Pvt Ltd Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.243/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P

u/s.143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. 2. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, considering that the issue raised in the instant appeal has been decided by this Tribunal in catena of decisions we proceed

Anwar Akbar Khatik, Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Dhule

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

ITA 2559/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2559/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

arising out of Assessment Order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Registry has informed that there

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 67/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

under section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before ... submitted his written submissions as under :- The ground no. 1 to 3 are inter-related and contains challenge to validity of issuance and service of notice u/s 148 and assumption of lawful jurisdiction for continuation of re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 66/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

under section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before ... submitted his written submissions as under :- "The ground no. 1 to 3 are inter-related and contains challenge to validity of issuance and service of notice u/s 148 and assumption of lawful jurisdiction for continuation of re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 65/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

under section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before ... submitted his written submissions as under :- “ The ground no. 1 to 3 are inter-related and contains challenge to validity of issuance and service of notice u/s 148 and assumption of lawful jurisdiction for continuation of re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 64/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

under section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before ... submitted his written submissions as under :- “ The ground no. 1 to 3 are inter-related and contains challenge to validity of issuance and service of notice u/s 148 and assumption of lawful jurisdiction for continuation of re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 63/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

under section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before ... submitted his written submissions as under :- “ The ground no. 1 to 3 are inter-related and contains challenge to validity of issuance and service of notice u/s 148 and assumption of lawful jurisdiction for continuation of re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2646/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Return of Income Acknowledgement Number of Return of Income Date of processing u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. Date of service of Notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act Date(s) of issue of Notice(s) under section 142(1) of the Income

Surya Kiran Finance Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

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

ITA 475/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

S N D P Yogam Kozhencherry Union, Pathanamthitta vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 244/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(24)

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. 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. 7. Admittedly, the appellant is a charitable trust

S N D P Yogam Kozhencherry Union, Pathanamthitta vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 243/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(24)

Ravindran Deepu, Trichur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 236/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ravindran Deepu .......... Appellant Kolangattukara House, Choolosherry P.O. Mundoor, Trichur 680541 [Pan: Akwpd1256B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent

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

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282(1)

find that the CIT(A) issued notice through ITBA portal. In my considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income ... Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals in ITA No

ITA 743/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

issued for under reporting of income. However, the assessee did not make a response to the ld. AO and therefore, after service of notice through speed post and registered email ID, the ld. AO to save the limitation, decided to levy a penalty of Rs.2,31,28,015/- being

Balraj, Fatehabad, Haryana vs. Ward 1, ITO, Fatehabad, Haryana

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

ITA 887/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the ld.AO despite the fact that no service of notice was made by the Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred

Nareshkumar Babubhai Sutariya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Passing The Impugned Order Of Penalty. 1.3 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grievously Erred In Law & Or On Facts In Imposing Penalty Of Rs 30,000/- For Alleged Default Of Non- Compliance To The Notices Issued U/S 142(1).”

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

database. Further, it is noted that during penalty proceedings the AO referred the matter to verification unit (VU) of the Department for manual service of notice. VU vide communication dated 21.12.2021 informed the AO that notice has been sent through speed post with Tracking ID: EG127761578IN. It is further noted

Harikkisan Shankar Chavan, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 39/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Digambar Surwase (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt Shraddha Nichal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that despite service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income. In response to the notice u/s 144 issued

Ujjwala Machhindra Bhujjbal, Pune vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Pune

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

ITA 21/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 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. However, with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative and also perusal of the records, we notice that in the impugned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Panvel Circle Panvel, Panvel vs. Dnyaneshwar Barkya Masane, Panvel

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

ITA 1640/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 50C

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2010-11. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing despite service of notice through the Ld. DR. Since this case was getting adjourned from time to time and notice was duly served through the Ld. DR, therefore, this

M/S. Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.(International Taxation), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.134/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) M/S Philips Electronics Vs Acit(International Taxation), Nederland B.V. Circle-2(1), Kolkata C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bengal Intelligent Park, Building Omega, 13Th& 14Th Floor, Block- Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronic Complex, Kolkata- 700091 Pan No. :Aafcp4361F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2022, Passed By The Acit, Circle-2(1), It, Kolkata Giving Effect To The Direction Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi(In Short The ‘Drp’), Dated 04.11.2022, Thereby Finalizing The Assessment Order In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Filed By The Assessee & Submitted That The Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Decided On The Following Additional Grounds Taken By The Assessee :-

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 90(2)

referred to the 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 Id. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from