“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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Khemka Stuart Leisure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6383/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 132ASection 153DSection 28

account or other documents; and by Finance Act, 2009, clause (c) was inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service ... necessary facility to inspect such records. By Finance Act, 2009, clause (c) was inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid

Vasulal Textiles, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

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

ITA 50/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vasulal Textiles .......... Appellant Ap Viii/466.469, Azhikode, Kannur 670009 [Pan: Aaefv3696F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward- 1 & Tps, Kannur

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

Section 143(3)

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. On a perusal of the assessment order

Identity Infrastructures Twin Towers, Maradu, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 108/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Identity Infrastructures Twin Towers .......... Appellant Xi/612 Adjacent To Crowne Plaza Kundannoor, Maradu, Kochi 682304 [Pan: Aaffi7257N] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Corporate Circle - 1(1), Kochi

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

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

M/S. Perinjanam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. R 720, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(5), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 846/COCH/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Perinjanam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Perinjanam P.O., Thrissur 680686 [Pan: Aacap7392K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward – 2(5) Thrissur

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

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. When the appeal was called 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. The learned Sr. DR submits that

Kailash Brick Traders, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Ropar, Punjab

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1067258373(1) Dated 02/08/2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act. Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. 2 2. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, C.A Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68Section 69

Whether the impugned order results in double taxation and is in violation of article 265 of the constitution of India.' 3. Whether service of notice under section I42( I) and 144 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 is a sinequa non to the initiation of proceedings for assessment

Moospet Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd 682, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 35/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Moospet Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Moospet P.O., Thrissur 680006 [Pan: Aaeam8229N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Shakthan Thampuran Ngar, Thrissur 680001 Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025

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

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 36(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Shilpa Tekkayil, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kozhikode

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

ITA 1162/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shilpa Tekkayil .......... Appellant Sreelakshmi, Kalathil, Thodi Mankavu Kozhikode 673007 [Pan: Ezaps9550N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(4), Kozhikode

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

appeal before us 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. At the outset I find that there

Kasana Sanitation Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 396/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kasana Sanitation Pvt. Ltd., P. No.-18, Rajeev Vihar Colony Gopal Pura By Pass, Jaipur-302 015 Pan No.: Aadck 9638A ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S. L. Jain, Mr. Ashok Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR, Ld. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

assessee registered with the department. Taking note of the continuous non- compliance from the assessee, case was marked to the verification unit for service of notice. But, there was no compliance made by the assessee. On perusal of the records it was observed by the AO that the assessee

Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2431/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

present appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record & after hearing Ld. DR. 6. Ld. DR submitted before

Prashant Balasaheb Kage, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(8)

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2140/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2140/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmangar, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,15,938/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under-Reported As A Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

Tanuja Balkrishna Gidithuri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19 (3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6606/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ms. Tanuja Balkrishna Ito -19(3)(5), Gidithuri, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 38/A, 1St Floor, Parekhwadi, Mumbai-400012. 202, V.P. Road, Prarthana Samag, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aakpg 8943 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

proper notices on the appellant, service of without serving proper notices on the appellant, service of without serving proper notices on the appellant, service of notice, principles of natural justice being violated, etc. being tice, principles of natural justice being violated, etc. being tice, principles of natural justice being violated

Naem Khan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6609/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Naem Khan Vs. Ito 2693, Churiwalan, Jama Ward-46(4), Masjid, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ahrpk1966H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. W. A. Khan, Adv & Sh. Mohnis Khan, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148oSection 151Section 69A

appeals)-16 has not appreciated that ld income tax officer was not justified in deciding the case exparte without providing sufficient opportunity and service of notice required under section 148of income tax act. 3. That ld commissioner of income tax (appeals)-16 has not appreciated that Id income tax officer ... justified in making the exparte assessment without service of notices required to initiate proceedings u/s 144 and the orders of ld income tax officer are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. That Id commissioner of income tax (appeals)-16 has not appreciated that Id income tax officer

Usha Keshri, Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa

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

ITA 417/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

which remains unexplained as alleged. Thereafter notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued but the assessee was not aware about any such service of notice and ultimately ex-parte assessment was framed by order dated 13.12.2019. Against the assessment order first appeal was filed before CIT Appeal but later

Mansor Foods India Private Limited, Cochin vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 996/COCH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mansor Foods India Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Door O. 43/3310A, Thammanam Puthiya Road , Kailas Nagar, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aakcm7705M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 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. 3 Mansor Foods India

Hajara Basheer, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 902/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hajara Basheer .......... Appellant Hibas Kolathara P.O. Cheruvannur, Kozhikode 673655 [Pan: Ainph6373G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode

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

Section 143(3)

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. On perusal of the order

Sivaramapillai Anilkumar, Kollam vs. ITO, W-1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 893/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sivaramanpillai Anilkumar .......... Appellant A.S. Communications, Chathannoor Kollam 691572 [Pan: Agrpa1890K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Trivandurm

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

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 250(6)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

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 AO made adhoc disallowance while framing

The Nallepilly Service Cooperative Bank Limited Nor43, Nallepilly vs. ITO, Ward-1 Assessment Unit Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan Palakkad

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

ITA 857/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nallepilly Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant \5/453 Nallepilly, Chittur, Palakkad 678553 [Pan: Aacat5798F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678001

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

Section 139Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. 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. 7. I notice that the issue of liability

Notional Chits & Loans Pvt Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Trichur

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

ITA 853/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Notional Chits & Loans Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Ix/432, Vadanapilly, Thrissur 680614 [Pan: Aabcn4095N] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(1), Thrissur

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

Section 143(3)

before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. 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. 5. The issue in the present appeal relates

Mina Wood Industries, Mattannur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kannur

In the result, appeal of the appellant stands allowed

ITA 833/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mina Wood Industries .......... Appellant Iii/656 B, Kallur, Matannur Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagmf2716D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -3, Kannur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

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

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

appeal before us 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. The ground of appeal is that the payment is made a Kerala Government undertaking, therefore, falls with the exceptions emanating under rule