“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

Savera Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1719/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263Section 68

details furnished by the share subscribers, we observe that each of them held valid PAN and CIN and the proof of 4 service of notices u/s 133(6), established the identity of the share subscribers. It is also observed that, the share subscribers were regular income-tax filers and their

Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR

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

issued on 13.03.2015 for AY 2012-13 was also factually erroneous. It was accordingly contended that the purported issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2) was clearly an after-thought, which vitiated the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment order to be null and void. The Id. AR thus ... binding effect on the department, but not on the Court. This circular clarifies the requirement of law in respect of service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude even for the purpose of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, for the determination

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4789/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). The issue relating to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is a issue which goes to the root of the matter. In Hotel Blue Moon (nupra ... deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. It is, however, to be noted that

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4788/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Jasdev Singh, Bathinda vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Btd, Bathinda

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

ITA 662/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [Pan:-Bzyps0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant By Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

case of Munzal BCU Entre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Ludhiana vs. CIT (Exemption) reported in 160 taxmann.com 629, to argue that non service of notice and orders in the email id of the assessee cannot be termed as complete and proper service and as such he prayed for condoning

Shri Tariq Ahmad Siddiqui, Sri Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3(1), Srinagar

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

ITA 20/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, C. A

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

first appellate authority has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal contained in form 35 on merits of the case and has also disputed service of notice u/s 148. 3. In course of hearing, before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment in this case ... office of the ld. first appellate authority in the ITBA Portal (para 4 of the appellate order) and there is no proof of service of notice through e-mail id of the assessee and as such, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee should

Jeet Corporate Services Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 509/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.509/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jeet Corporate Services The Ito बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. K/2, Shubh Prayog Co-Op. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Housing Society Sujata Flats, Fshahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccj 6855 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M.Vasavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/08/2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,39,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loans Shown By The Assessee. Jeet Corporate Services Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2012-13 2 3. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 492 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Assessee Neither Received Any Notice Of Hearing From The Ld. Cit(A) Either Physically Or On E-Mail, Nor Received The Copy Of The Final Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore, The Assessee Was Not Aware About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). The Appeal Was Filed When The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Came To The Notice Of The Assessee, When The Department Initiated Recovery Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M.Vasavda, Sr.DR

Section 144

again adjourned to 01/12/2025. Identical directions were again given by this Tribunal vide order dated 01/12/2025 directing for getting the evidence of service of notice of hearing as well as of final order of the Ld.CIT(A) upon the assessee. The case, thereafter, was adjourned. Even today, no such information

Naresh Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1559/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1559/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Naresh Kumar Jain, No.33, Venkaiyer Street, Kondithope, Chennai - 600 079. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai. Pan: Aaρρν 0443B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Gautam S. Mukundan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (In Short `Cit(A)') Dated 10.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

appeal before us in the present appeal. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee despite due service of notice of hearing of appeal. Neither was there a petition seeking adjournment from hearing of appeal. We find from record that the matter was adjourned

Yogesh Chadha, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 31(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1498/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250

basis of notices for which procedure laid by law for service was not followed. 3. That in the absence of valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessment proceedings and consequent assessment framed are invalid and bad in law 4.1 The learned CIT[A] has erred

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Vejalpurt vs. Shri Govindam Agro Foods Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed in above terms

ITA 1866/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DRFor Respondent: None

Section 147Section 250

through DR, who served the notice through affixture since the premises of the assessee was found locked. Report of the AO regarding the service of notice through affixture was submitted to us, the contents of which are as under: ITA No. 1866/Ahd/2025 [ITO vs. Shri Govindam Agro Foods Private Limited

Karan Israni, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1627/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Muneesh Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153C

served on the assessee wherein assessee was requested to file his ITR u/s 153C of the within 30 days from the service of notice. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued on 17.01.2O23 wherein Page 2 of 8 ITA No. 1627/DEL/2025

Tufel, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3293/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. In the instant additional ground, we find that the issue of date of service of notice u/s 142(1) has been raised for the first time before us. It is claimed that the notice u/s 142(1), though uploaded ... electronically transmitted to any E-Mail nor sent physically by post to the assessee. To determine the legality of the ground regarding service of notice, the relevant facts relating to the service of notice through ITBA/email/post is not on record. In absence of the relevant facts, the additional ground raised

Saheed Darshan Filling Station, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 3, Khanna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 1736/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1736/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shaheed Darshan Filling Station, The Ito, Village-Iraq, Kohara Road, Vs Ward-3, Machhiwara, So-Irak, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfs1129H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & S.A. No. 5/Chd/2026 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1736/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shaheed Darshan Filling Station, The Ito, Village-Iraq, Kohara Road, Vs Ward-3, Machhiwara, So-Irak, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfs1129H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sifatpreet Singh, Ca & Shri Amanjot Singh, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sifatpreet Singh, CA and Shri Amanjot Singh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

counsel for the assessee that assessee firm was dissolved on 24.03.2014 and it was non- existing during assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, service of notice or assessment order through electronic mode was not a good service and it was not in its knowledge. The ld.CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate this

Shri Raghunath Maruti Bhosale, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2167/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2167/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Raghunath Maruti Bhosale, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalashree, 32B, Laxmi Vasant, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur Jawahar Nagar, Kolhapur-416012 Maharashtra Pan : Aazpb3548D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 1Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.148 of the Act. 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date of hearing fixed on 27.10.2025 there is no one to represent the assessee. I therefore proceed to adjudicate

Richa Nangia, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 25, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 811/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153CSection 153DSection 69Section 69ASection 69C

justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 1.2 That in absence of proper service of notice or grant of sufficient opportunity, the impugned order has been passed in contravention of principles of natural justice and same is invalid and void

Richa Nangia, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 810/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153CSection 153DSection 69Section 69ASection 69C

Hanumangarh Jiwrajka Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 7606/MUM/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarhanumangarh Jiwrajka Cit (Exemption), Charitable Trust Room No. 601, 6Th 413-F, 3Rd Floor, Vasant Vs. Floor, Cumballa Hill Wadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mtnl Te Building, Kalbadevi Ho, Mumbai- Pedder Road, Dr. 400 002 Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aaath1615C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Komal Dhedia, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

namely madhusudan.bharadwaj@alokind.com, instead of the assessee’s registered e-mail ID, namely manmoldsam@gmail.com. It was contended that, on account of such incorrect service of notices, the assessee could not make any effective compliance or representation before the CIT (Exemptions), and the application under section 80G came to be rejected without ... raised no objection to restoration of the matter. 7. In our considered view, rejection of the application under section 80G without ensuring effective service of notices and without granting proper opportunity of hearing amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the order

DCIT - CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 576/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

protective addition u/s 69C being the unexplained commission expenditure. Accordingly, ground Nos 1 to 3 of the appeal are partly allowed.” 4. Despite service of notice through registered post and thereafter through the Departmental Representative, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceed

Pradeep Jain, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Ujjain

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 543/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshipradeep Jain, Ito –Ward-1(1), बनाम/ 7/C, Suraj Nagar, Ujjain. Ujjain. Vs. (Pan: Aglpj6336K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Harshit Chowkse, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

order. During the appellate proceedings the appellant was given opportunities to put forth his case, but he did not upload any response despite service of notice(s) which leaves no reason for the undersigned to interfere with the order of the AO.” 2.3 The Assessee being Aggrieved by the “Impugned

Urban Administration Amd Development, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Bhopal

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 477/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidirectorate Of Urban Deputy बनाम/ Administrations & Development, Commissioner Of Vs. Nagar Palika Bhawan, 6 No.Bus Income Tax-Tds, Stop, R.S.Market, Bhopal S.O. Huzur, Bhopal(M.P.) (Tan: Bpldo1618B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. & Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

appellant in response to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act on various dates is summarized as under: Sl Hearing – Due date Service of Notice on the e- Result No. Notice Date given for mail given Page 4 of 12 Directorate of Urban Administration & Development ITA No. 477/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16