“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

Income Tax Officer, Panaji vs. Anil Raghuvir Sirsat, Parra Bardez

ITA 289/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 289/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

transactions of the assessee was identified for verification of Specified Financial Transactions [‘SFT’ hereinafter] under Operation Clean Money [‘OCM’ hereinafter] and consequently by service of notices dt. 13/03/2018 & 16/09/2018 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act the assessee was called upon to deliver a return of income. When the assessee

Vinod Kumar Chugh, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 274

opportunity to present its case due to this procedural lapse. It is a settled principle that any order passed without ensuring proper service of notice is unsustainable in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that failure to serve notice properly vitiates the entire proceedings

Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT-Cercle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 234/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

coordinate bench on the issue of quantum and directed to follow the procedure as laid down in section 282 of the Act for service of notice. The assessee is directed to positively participate in the proceedings without seeking any adjournment and come forward with relevant explanation/evidence relied upon. In these

Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 233/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Rajashthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 232/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Estate Officer, Huda Panchkula, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee in those appeals are also dismissed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal & Ms. Rattan Kaur, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 148

have been perused. Briefly stated the appellant has disputed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act primarly on account of non-service of notice u/s 148 issued by the AO and has also disputed the additions made by the AO on the ground that it is a office ... Chief Controller of Finance of Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula dated 15.11.2023. The AO has also accepted that there is no record of service of notice u/s 148 through ITBA. From the above, the stand of the appellant that it being an office under HUDA/HSVP was not a separate legal entity

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Estate Officer, Huda Panchkula, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee in those appeals are also dismissed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal & Ms. Rattan Kaur, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 148

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Estate Officer, Huda Panchkula, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee in those appeals are also dismissed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal & Ms. Rattan Kaur, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 148

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Welsh and Breton Blenders Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 603/HYD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 194HSection 40

such person at the given address or no such address at the given address”. The assessee has explained the reasons for non-service of notices issued by the Assessing Officer to the list of persons given by the appellant-company and according to the appellant-company, the excise license ... from the parties to prove 25 ITA.No.603/Hyd./2024 the genuineness of expenditure, in our considered view, merely for the reason of non-service of notice, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the genuine expenditure incurred by the appellant-company. 13. Further, the Assessing Officer has took support from

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 359/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

r.w.s 263 of the Act on 30.03.2022, an application was made to the learned PCIT on 07.04.2022 under RTI to provide details of service of notice and also copy of the order. The learned PCIT stated that the order was served on email available in PAN data and a copy ... dated 30.03.2022, an application was made to the learned PCIT on 07.04.2022 under RTI to collect relevant information about service of notice and also copy of the order. From the above, it is very clear that, the appellant was aware of the proceedings before the learned PCIT and also appeared

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Srk Construction Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 1415/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Daya Shankar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1607/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1607/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Ashish Sindwani, Nilokheri, C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Dtnps-9951-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered Accountant Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Two Counts:- “(I) Confirming Addition Of Rs.24,77,940/- U/S. 69A Of The Act, On Account Of Cash Deposits During The Period Of Demonization; &

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 44Section 44ASection 69A

filer. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee to file return of income for AY 2017-18. Despite service of notice neither any return of income was filed nor any reply was sent by the assessee. Repeated notices were served on the assessee, the assessee

Nivedita Charitable Trust, Mohali vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 454/CHANDI/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

application for final approval of registration u/s 12AB in an ex parte order without allowing opportunity of being heard an without ensuring proper service of notice for fixation of the proceedings. 2. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, withdraw further grounds of appeal till the appeal is heard ... order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is an ex parte order without allowing opportunity of being heard and without ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee. It was also submitted that the notices were not complied for simple reason that the assessee could not receive any notice issued

Nivedita Charitable Trust, Mohali vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 453/CHANDI/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon'Ble(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Pratik Ashvinkumar Soni, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 163/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notices. However a Paper Book is filed by the assessee which contains cash book, sales register, purchase register with relevant bank accounts and copy

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 68/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 68/Ahd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Checkmate Services Vs. Pvt. Ltd. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower, Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390002 बनाम / The Dy.Cit Cpc, Bangalore Present Jurisdiction The Dy.Cit, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc8465A (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलार्थी ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M. R. Sahu, Ar. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 Order Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Was Originally Decided Vide Order Ita No.68/Ahd/2023 Dated 20.05.2024 & The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed. Thereafter, The Assessee Had Filed A Miscellaneous Application On The Ground That Additional Legal Ground Taken By The Assessee Were Omitted To Be Adjudicated. The Miscellaneous Application Was Decided Vide Order Ma No. 121/Ahd/2024 (In

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

this email address. He further submitted that the intimation sent by the department on any other email address was not a valid service of notice. 3. Per contra, Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that before processing return of income, a notice of adjustment u/s.143

Wadmavli Loak Vikas Manch Dhiphal Wad, Beed vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 28/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Pun/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12A

short ‘the Act’). 2. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the appellant. 2 Wadmavli Loak Vikas Manch

Mohammed Imran Patni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 61/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

appeal was ever served upon him. Although, it is the Ld. DR’s claim that there is no mechanism for carrying out service of notices otherwise than through e-mail, but we are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the same. As an assessee-appellant at the stage

Mohammed Imran Patni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 60/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C