“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

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

dated 25.03.2025 has submitted that the above address as per information from public domain is that of a Tax Consultant and that the service of notice on the said address is evidenced. “3.1 The Hon'ble ITAT Vide Para No 3 of Order-sheet, has directed to give comment ... Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400067. On a search conducted in public domain. JSP Finman Consultants are tax consultant. The proof of issuance, dispatch and service of notice u/s, 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 have already provided in the report submitted vide this office letter dated 26.09.2024 and Email dated

Surinder Kumar, Jalalabad (W) vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Abohar

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

ITA 92/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. D. R

Section 115BSection 69A

failed to confirm the delivery of the notices to the appellant and an made ex-parte order assuring the service of notices. without 4. That the Ed. CIT(A) wrongly and illegally upheld the addition of Rs 21,16,031/- on account of cash deposit in bank account during demonetization

Hardial Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Hoshiarpur

ITA 185/ASR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh.Parveen Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. D. R

Section 10Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(c)Section 80C

hereby submit this affidavit in support of my application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal before the ITAT and non-service of notices sent by the lower authorities. 3. 1 state that the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT

Om Processors Private Limited, K-3, Textiles Colony Ludhiana (East), Millerganj, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 758/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69B

assessee has also taken ground of appeal No.1 with regard to the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 and also for non-service of notice u/s 143(2) since the appropriate relief has been allowed to the assessee, the said ground of appeal have become academic in nature

ITO, Ward-2, Rohtak vs. Jai Singh, Rohtak

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

ITA 8284/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 274

upon various case laws and held that in view of the fact as discussed in her order, as there was no evidence of service of notice u/s 148 of the Act by affixture, as proposed by the AO when the notice issued on 31.03.2015 came back unserved, the re-assessment ... treated reassessment u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 196lin this case invalid and void as there was no proof of service of notice u/s 148 of the Act by affixture. (Para 5.2.9 of the Appeal Order, page 12) and Department is in appeal against this. Having held

Transunion International Inc., Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2698/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. a/w

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 47

being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received." "Section 282: Service of notice generally:- (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred ... Section 282, the communication through electronic record as per Chapter IV of the I.T.Act was recognized and treated to be service of notice generally. Chapter IV of the I.T.Act contains Section 13, which envisages time, place of 'despatch' and 'receipt' of electronic record. 30. In order to meticulously examine

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Surguja vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Kumar Gupta Dindo H No.37 Bajar Para, Saiwahi District: Surguja-437 220 (C.G) Pan: Bbopg3824N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surguja (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 151

thus there was no violation of the provisions of the Act. However, in the said report the A.O is silent about the physical service of notice to the assessee, dated 06.04.2018 which was undoubtedly beyond the three years from the end of the relevant assessment year ... relevant assessment year ended on 31.03.2018. In this regard, the report of the A.O is silent regarding such physical service of notice on 06.04.2018, for which, whether permission of the competent authority has been taken or not, this aspect is absolutely absent in the said report. That further

Sinuj Vijayan, Vadakkencherry vs. ITO, Ward2, Palakkad

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

ITA 806/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sinuj Vijayan .......... Appellant Vijay Steels, Bus-Stand, Vadakkencherry Palakkad 678683 [Pan: Asnpv3671K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Chruch Road Palakkad 678001

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

Section 154

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. On perusal of the impugned order passed

Deepali Manish Shrivastava, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2547/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

further find that even in the back of assessment order on page 2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer again mentioned the service of notice u/s 143(2) on the assessee on 28.09.2019. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the legal ground raised by the assessee which

Minakshi Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 59(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1926/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1926/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2011-12) Minakshi Sharma, A-612, Dilshad Colony, East Delhi, Delhi 110095 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bsups-4065-G बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/04/2025 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 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 05.10.2023, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 142 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal. The Reason For Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is On Account Of Medical Exigencies. The Assessee To Substantiate The Reason Has Annexed Medical Records With The Application. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or For Want Of Action, But Was For The Reasons Stated In Application Which Appears To Be Bonafide. The Delay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 39Section 69A

detail of deposits and withdrawals in the bank before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected assessee's contentions with regard to non service of notice and without commenting on merits of the addition dismissed appeal. 4. Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed

Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 564/DEL/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

copy of the speed post booking list. On going through the order sheet, it is found that the Assessing Officer has mentioned the service of notice u/s 148 of the Act through speed post. But, nowhere in the order sheet it is mentioned that notice

Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1721/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Good Shepherd Monastery Society, Kottayam vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kottayam

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

ITA 212/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Good Shepherd Monastery Society .......... Appellant Kmc/No. Ix/319, St. Joseph Covent Junction Railway Station Roax, Kottayam 696001 [Pan: Aaatg8477F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Kottayam

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)

before the 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. The appellant society was duly registered

Shahnavas Pariyangadu Muhammed, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

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

ITA 207/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shahnavas Pariyangadu Muhammed .......... Appellant 1/10, Subi Villa, Pazhabalacode Alathur, Palakkad 678544 [Pan: Biaps8360Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Palakkad .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.10.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Not Filed Regular Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2014-15. However, As Per The Information Received Through Multiyear Nms Cases In Aims Module The Ao Found That The Assessee Was Involved In Certain Financial Transactions During Fy 2013-14. Therefore The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 29.03.2021. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee Filed

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

before the 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. I find that the learned

Atholi Vanitha Co-Operative Society Ltd, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 206/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Atholi Vanitha Co-Operative Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Atholi, Koyilandy, Kozhikode 673315 [Pan: Aacaa8777F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 2(1), Kozhikode .......... Respondent

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

Section 143(1)Section 80P

before the 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. I find that the CPC disallowed

St Josephs Church Neduvaloor, Neduvaloor vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kannur

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

ITA 205/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

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

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the matter was called upon, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Senior DR. 5. I heard the learned Sr.DR and perused the material

Suma Ayirampallil Chandrangathan, Paippad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 159/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Suma Ayirampallil Chandrangathan .......... Appellant Mohanalayam, Pallikachira, Vellappally Paippad, Changanassery 686537 [Pan: Aejpc1720J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 282(1)

heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice of hearing appears to have been issued nor reasonable opportunity was given by the NFAC. Further, there is no evidence that proper notices u/s.143 ... submission of ld. AR, notices were issued 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

Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.214/Pun/2022

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

Order u/s 143(3) as valid. Appellant prays to annul the same holding it as Bad in Law, without jurisdiction for lack of service of notice u/s 143(2) on the Assessee. 3) Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,20,09,000/-u/s.68 made ... both the sides. Both the sides agreed and accordingly the parties proceeded ahead to argue the case on this legal issue of valid service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual declaring income from business, capital gain

Shri Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod, Village Dudana, Taluka Kodinar, Dist. Gir Somnath vs. The ITO Ward-1, Junagadh

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

ITA 880/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 880 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod The Ito, Ward-1, Junagadh Vs. 8, Karadiya Gyati Vistar, Village Ito, Bhootnath Chamber, Opp. Dudana Of Kodiar Taluka, Boudin Collage, Dist. Gir, Somnath - 362720 Junagadh-362001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awypr7036H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Aggarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Aggarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(5)Section 254Section 69A

appeal raised by the assessee: 1. Ld. jurisdictional assessing officer erred in law and on facts in finalizing the assessment order without valid service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 08.02.2018 within the statutory period of relevant assessment year. Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod 2. Ld. jurisdictional assessing officer ... issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearings of the case. We note that the order of the CIT(A) is silent on service of notices upon the assessee. We further observed that the assessee had not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued

Satish Kumar Radheshyam Choudhari, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

ITA 406/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253

filing the appeal. As per section 249(2) of the I.T. Act, the assessee shall present its appeal within 30 days of service of notice of demand relating to the assessment. The section 249(3) of the IT Act, empowers the first appellate authority to admit the appeal after