“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

Palakkad District Cooperative Printing Press Ltd, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward-2, Palakkad

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

ITA 294/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

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

Section 80P

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. I find that there is no material

Mankada Palliative Care Association, Malappuram vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kozhikode

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

ITA 1001/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mankada Palliative Care Association .......... Appellant Mankada, Malapuram 679324 [Pan: Aadam6805B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) .......... Respondent Kozhikode

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

Section 12ASection 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 only issue that arises

Narayanan Mukundan, Valiyakunnu vs. ITO, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 912/COCH/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Narayanan Mukundan .......... Appellant Mukunda Niwas, Attingal P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695101 [Pan: Bdmpm7286A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Thiruvananthapuram

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

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

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. From the grounds of appeal filed before

Sri.A. Kamaludeen Thangal, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 83/COCH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 A. Kamaludden Thangal .......... Appellant Zeenosil, Punnode, Vettiyara P.O. Navaikulam, Trivandrum [Pan: Abppt6728E] Vs. Dcit. Central Circle – 1, Trivandrum .......... Respondent

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be termed as ex- prate. An order having been passed by the CIT(A) after service of notices on the assessee, there is no question of failure of natural justice. It cannot be said that the assessee was not given an opportunity ... 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, requirements of procedure as mentioned in Section 250(1) and (2) could not be said to have been fulfilled

Vishalkumar Hareshbhai Darbar, Botad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2148/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

Saey stiches sifu, seneme aaite a’, sess | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD gm geacecad, wate wees

Mayur Stones, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1093/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate V. Sriram NiwasFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

issued by the learned CIT (A) were sent to an email ID which was not given in Form 35 for the purpose of service of notice or order. We further note that the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of Page ... only to the address/email ID given by the assessee in Form-35. Section 282 of the I.T. Act, 1961 contemplates the mode of service of notice or order or any other communication under this Act by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by post or by such courier

Mayur Stones, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1092/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Advocate V. Sriram NiwasFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Bluefrog Mobile Technologies Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 93/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)(a)Section 144

Learned Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR submitted that as the service of notices intimating the fixation of the appeal through physical mode had been dispensed with way back, therefore, the grievance of the assessee company of not having

Shri Vachaspati Educational Trust, Thane vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as ‘withdrawn’

ITA 518/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Vachaspati Educational Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Trust, B/501, Varsha Tower, Sai Baba Nagar- 401107. Pan : Aahts4584L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari : Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab Of The It Act. 2. When The Matter Had Come Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing. However, The Appellant Filed A Letter Seeking Permission To Withdraw The Above Captioned Appeal. It Was Mentioned In The 2 Above Application That Due To An Inadvertent Error In The Memo Of Appeal The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer Was Mentioned As Pune, Whereas The Correct Jurisdiction Is Thane. As Soon As The Mistake Was Realized The Assessee Sent An Email On 28.02.2025 To The Registry Of Itat, Pune Bench, Pune Requesting For Withdrawal Of Above Appeal. It Is Further Submitted That The Assessee Has Already Filed Corrected Appeal On 03.03.2025 Before Itat, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai. Under The Above Facts Prayer Was Made To Permit Withdrawal Of The Above Said Appeal. 3. Ld. Dr Had Expressed No Objection To Permit The Withdrawal Of The Appeal. 4. In The Circumstances, We Hereby Grant Permission To The Appellant To Withdraw The Appeal. Accordingly, The Above Captioned Appeal Stands Dismissed As ‘Withdrawn’. 5. In The Result, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Stands Dismissed As ‘Withdrawn’. Order Pronounced On This 26Th Day Of March, 2025. (R. K. Panda)पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 26Th March, 2025. Sujeet

For Appellant: None

Section 12A

12AB of the IT Act. 2. When the matter had come up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, the appellant filed a letter seeking permission to withdraw the above captioned appeal. It was mentioned in the 2 above application

Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter, Kochi vs. Income Tax Officer, Kochi

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

ITA 1164/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter .......... Appellant Elavungal House, Mahakvi Vailoppilli Road, Palarivattom, Ernakulam 682025 [Pan: Aagpe8491B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward-2(1), Kochi

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

Section 143(3)

admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. 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. 3 Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter 8. The short issue

Nav Apoorv Welfare Dharmik and Parmarthik Trust, Indore vs. CIT (Exemption) Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 694/IND/2024[nil]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshinav Apoorv Welfare Dharmik & Parmarthik Trust, 790-B, Scheme No.71, Indore (Assessee/Appellant)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Rajesh, Bharatpur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, WD 1, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 1537/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Malhotra, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 282Section 69A

assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard and specifically follow the procedure as laid down in section 282 of the Act for service of notice and the assessee is directed to participate in the proceedings without seeking any adjournment and demonstrate full cooperation with the AO in terms of supply

Rajesh, Rajasthan vs. ITO, WD 1, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 1536/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Malhotra, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 282Section 69A

Deepak Kakar, Ferozpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ferozpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 409/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayxsftrtot U/Ita No. 409/Asr/2024 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Deepak Kakar, The Ito, <Shw Mohalla Dhanwala Wala, Ward-3(1), Closed Street, Ferozepur Ferozepur City, Punjab 152002 Tt./Pan No: Ctzpk1764P H^L^Ff/Respondent 3| 4] Cl |'4F/Appellant ( Hybridhearing ) <Ivjcj?! $/ Revenue By :Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr 3{N Tf/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 195

notice was not served. The assessment order is perused and accordingly the objection raised by the appellant with regard to the issuance and service of notice is discussed. The ground of appeal no. 1 is dismissed. 409-Asr-2024 Deepak Kumar, Ferozepur 7 We have considered the findings given

Sai Sakshi Automotive Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 26/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 250(6)Section 270A

order dated 25.03.2022 u/s.270A of the Act. 2. When the appeal was called for, 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 exparte qua the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Aliya Nasser Aziz (Late) L/R Nasser Aziz, B'Lore, Bangalore

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 486/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

were served on the assessee. However, there is no evidence with respect to date of issue of notice and service of notice to the assessee. Finally, the assessee appeared and filed relevant details on 21.12.2010. 3.1. The assessment was completed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income ... were served on the assessee. However, there is no evidence with respect to date of issue of notice and service of notice to the assessee. Finally, the assessee appeared and filed relevant details on 21.12.2010. 19. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee, made various additions including

Nasser Aziz An, B'Lore, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 374/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Nasser Aziz An, B'Lore, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 373/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shri Swami Samarth Educational and Charitable Trust, Bahadurgarh vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

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

ITA 3116/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.3116/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2024-25) Shri Swami Samarth Educational & Charitable Trust, Vpo Ladrawan, Tehsil Bahdurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana 124507 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aazts-1288-F बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) C R Building, Himalya Marg, Sector 17-E, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Chandigarh 160017 Assessee By : Shri Navin Gupta, Advocate Department By : Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(E)') Dated 24.02.2023, Whereby Application Of The Assessee For Grant Of Registration U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Rejected. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 429 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Notices Issued By The Cit(E) & The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(E) Were Never Served On The Assessee. Hence

For Appellant: Shri Navin Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 5

denovo consideration of assessee’s application for grant of registration u/s. 12A of the Act. The assessee upon service of notice by the CIT(E) shall respond to the same, without fail and furnish the requisite details/documents. 7. The CIT(E) after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee