“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

Bannavatu Tulasi, Kanchikacherla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 451/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Baanavatu Tulasi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M.P.P. School, Kopthapet, Ward-1(1), Kanchikacherla, Vijayawada. Krishna-521180. Pan: Afcpt1634C (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 69

justified in treating the assessment as valid even though such assessment was made without 5 proper service of notice U/s. 148 of the Act and hence leads to be void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the absence ... Grounds No. 2, 3 & 4 relate to the issuance of notice U/s.143(2) of the Act wherein the assessment was completed without proper service of notice U/s. 148 of the Act. On this issue, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee was issued a notice

Venkata Muralidhar Atluri, Gudivada Rural Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

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

ITA 336/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.336/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Venkata Muralidhar Atluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Opp. Bhaskar Takkies Door No. 2/56, Chowtapalli Gudivada – 521301 Gudivada Rural Mandal Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh – 521323 [Pan: Ahqpa7838M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

impugned Asst. Order at a para 2 thereof) and also considering the fact that such 'ground' with regard to non service of Notice under Sec.148 of the Act contained in the aforesaid appeal petition in Form No.35, the Ld. 1st appellate authority ought to have adjudicated this legal issue before

Dilipkumar Bababhai Zaveri, Patan, Gujarat vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad

ITA 939/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 282

raised a contention that the order passed under section 263 of the Act was bad in law, since it was passed without any service of notice under section 263 of the Act. 4. His contention was that the ld.Pr.CIT had issued two notices under section ... sent to the assessee by email or otherwise, and was reflected in the e-portal of the Department, there was no service of notice in terms of provisions of section 282 of the Act and Rules made thereunder. Copy of the order was placed before us. 5. The ld.counsel

Sanjeev Kumar Das, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(3)- Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidarasanjeev Kumar Das Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 408/B, Mantri Serene, Film City 42(3)(3),Mumbai. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East, 400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Ahspd8423D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriJigar MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(SR DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 147oSection 250Section 50C

delayed without appreciating the fact that there was no delay in filing the Appeal as the appeal was filed within 30 days of service of notice of demand. 2. The Appellant reserves his right to add, amend, delete and modify the above grounds of appeal.” Additional ground: “1. The order

Damodar Prasad Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 65/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

submitted before Learned CIT(A) would reveal that the assessee-appellant furnished therein address and e-mail address for the purpose of service of notices. The e-mail ID was dpsharma.nikhil01@gmail.com. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed of the above said email ... notice u/s 144 on 18.02.2023 followed by another show cause notice dated 02.02.2023. The Assessing Officer observed in the assessment order that despite service of notice u/s 148 of the Act no return of income was furnished by the assessee. He also specifically mentioned about non compliance of the other

Kabbur Poorva Bhag Vividoddhesha Prathamik Grameen Krushi S Sangh Ni, Kabbur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 304/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Kabbur Purvbhag Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit At Post: Kabbur, Tal.:Chikodi, Dist.:Belgaum. Pan : Aadat9192J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Nippani. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069069880(1) Dt. 25/09/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereafter].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 80P(2)

said return without variation was in first place processed summarily u/s 143(1) of the Act and then subsequently subjected to scrutiny by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO noted that, the assessee had earned an interest

Sanjay Balasaheb Shelake, Sangli vs. CIT(A), Sangli

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

ITA 191/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M MaliFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

same as unexplained. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,62,590/-. 3 5. Since despite service of notice the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the ex-parte order passed by him dismissed

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Seva Trust Motala, Motola vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2248/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2248/Pun/2024

For Respondent: Appellant by None

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

short ‘the Act’). 2. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the appellant trust 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. 3. Succinctly, the facts

Shri Balaji Mandir, Sambhajinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed for

ITA 2222/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2222/Pun/2024

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

registration u/s.12AA of the Act. 4. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the appellant trust 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

Gutta Jagan Mohan Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of both the Assessee’s

ITA 82/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA D Anil KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

1349/Hyd./2024 & ITA.No.82/Hyd./2025 8. The Learned DR on the other hand vehemently relied on the orders of the authorities below. Despite service of notice, the assessee never bothered to substantiate her case and, therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly made the impugned additions in the hands of the assessee

Padmavathi Gutta, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of both the Assessee’s

ITA 1349/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA D Anil KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Indus Education Society, Lakhanpur Kanput vs. DCIT, Exemp., Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Harish Chand Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bn-81, West Shalimar Bagh, Ward-34(1), Delhi – 110 088. Delhi. Pan: Aeupg0010Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

provisions of sec 292BB does not come to the rescue of the department as it is not a case of non- service of notice but a case of non-issue of notice. 8. The ld.DR submitted that the ld. AO had passed ex parte order. The ld.CIT

Sunitha Nair, Palakkad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 148

faceless appeal scheme, 2021. 4. It is submitted that the assessment order is totally illegal, unsustainable and void-ab-initio due to non-service of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which confers jurisdiction on the AO. 5. The Impugned assessment order is totally illegal, unsustainable

Mitalben Rahulkumar Shah, Anand vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Anand, Anand

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

ITA 1637/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Assessing Officer, hence, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer failing which the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceeding as per the provisions of the Act.

ground of limited. He ought to have decided the matter on merits as mentioned in statement of facts. (2) In absence of proper service of notice Assessment Order is bad in law. 3. On going through the record, I find that notices u.s.250 of the Act were issued

Sadashiv B Dalawai, Raibag vs. Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 307/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 307/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sadashiv B Dalawai At Post Shiragur Tal.: Raibag, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Bdrpd7066A . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer/Itd, Belgaum/New Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10703226271(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 21/09/2022 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21[‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 80G

17/02/2021 was subsequently on 31/03/2021 revised to ₹85,91,300/- The case of the assessee selected for scrutiny by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings the assessee failed to respond various notices issued to him and also failed to produce books

Dipesh Naresh Sattarshakwala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward -1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1235/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jidicial Member & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1235/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Dipesh Naresh Sattarshakwala, I.T.O., B-304, Sweet Residency, Near Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. Sitaram Nagar, Honey Park Road Surat. Adajan, Surat-395009 Pan No. Bjgps 6238 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)

filing appeal, the assessee in Form-35 has given e-mail address of his AR as of “jagashethcal@gmail.com“ for the purpose of service of notice of hearing of appeal. However, no notice was sent through such email address, rather notice was sent through different email at dipesh_17shakwala@yahoo.com, which was discovered

Nitinkumar Manubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Nitinkumar Manubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23, Patel Faliya, Varachha Road, 3(2)(8), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम Nana Varachha, Surat-395 006 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Vs [Pan : Abypp 4221 H] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 250Section 254(1)

filing present appeal before Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has already filed copy of ITBA portal showing service of notice through different e-mail addresses than the e-mail provided while filing first appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that

Ankit Dilip Sethi, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay which is due to service of notice in the “Spam Email” of the concerned Chartered Accountant. After considering the contents of the such delay and after hearing ld.DR, the delay in filing

Ankit Dilip Sethi, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1999/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Ankit Dilip Sethi, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1998/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A