“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

Sanjeev Kumar, Gaya vs. ITO Ward- 3 (2), Gaya

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

ITA 144/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 143(3)

assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, inspite of service of notice, the assessee did not turn up to substantiate his case before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities

Smt Snehlatadevi, L/R Ramnaresh Prasad, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(5), Patna

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

ITA 485/PAT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 485/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Smt. Snehlata Devi,……………..……..……Appellant (Legal Heir Ramnaresh Prasad), W/O. Sri Ramnaresh Prasad, Gate No., 97, Bansh Kothi, Digha Ghat, Patna-800011, Bihar [Pan:Deapd9673B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...Respondent Ward-6(5), Patna, 3Rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Fraser Road, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147

Mahendra Narayan Bhoir, Raigad vs. Nafac, National Faceless Appeal Center

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

ITA 2743/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 271(1)(c)

appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing Ld. DR as well as on the basis of material available on record

Nikhil Gajanan Patil, Kadegaon Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Sangli, Sangli, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1569/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1569/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nikhil Gajanan Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. At Post Kadegaon, Tal. Palus, Dist. Sangli- 415303. Pan : Cbrpp3286K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, Neither Anybody Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant-Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 144Section 147Section 148

appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. 2 Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing Ld. DR as well as on the basis of material available

Shivaramaiah Guruswamy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2425/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 148ASection 234ASection 234FSection 69A

family members and is not conversant with technology and was not able to see the notices issued. Hence, in the absence of service of notices the entire proceedings are bad in law. 4. The learned authorities below erred in completing the assessment by taxing Rs. 67,86,000/- as unexplained

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukriti Information Systems (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1991/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

relevant for the Asst. Year 2012-2013) and hence, the assessment proceedings conducted and assessment order passed in the absence of proper service of notice u/s 143(2) are also illegal and invalid and liable to be quashed. 3. 1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... absence of a valid notice under section 143(2), the assessment order passed in the absence of proper service of notice is illegal and void. It is also submitted that the assessee company has not received notice dated 23.09.2013 issued u/s. 143(2) of as stated in the assessment order

ITO Ward 2(1), Nagpur, Civil Lines vs. Datamatic System Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 579/NAG/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. During the course of hearing, none appeared for assessee, despite service of notice. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeals of the Revenue after hearing the Learned DR. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee

ITO Ward 2(1), Nagpur, Civil Lines Nagpur vs. Datamatic System Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 577/NAG/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Officer WD 2(1), Civil Lines vs. Datamatic System Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 576/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT/JCIT, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1756/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 143(3)Section 250

respective Assessment orders. 2. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee society despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeals with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee. Sakhar Karkhana

Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1755/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 143(3)Section 250

Shri Dudhaganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT/JCIT, Pune

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

ITA 1754/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 143(3)Section 250

Abhishek Bhutra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-38, Midnapore, Midnapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.242/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abhishek Bhutra..….…....………………………… ........................……Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocate 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Ahupb6924D] Vs. Acit, Circle-38, Midnapore...............…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.32,76,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In Bank Account Of The Assessee Treating The Same As Income Of The Assessee From Undisclosed Sources. The Assessee, An Individual, Was Engaged In Wholesale Dealing In Mobile Handsets Of Different Companies Under The Name & Style Of “Ub Starcom”. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act On 01.11.2017 Disclosing A Total Income At Rs.15,34,300/- For The Assessment Year Under Dispute. The Notice U/S

Section 120Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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 ... notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself.” 10. Respectfully following the propositions

Akshay Kumar Saxena, Mumbai vs. ITO-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Akshay Kumar Saxena, Ito-4(2)(1), A-1604 Rushi Heights, Riddhi Room No. 1702, 17Th Floor, Vs. Gardens Filmcity Road, Malad (E), Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Axsps 3020 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bimlendu Bhushan

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

portal on 01/04/2021) So 31.03.2021 which is uploaded on portal on 01/04/2021) So 31.03.2021 which is uploaded on portal on 01/04/2021) So the service of Notice considered as 01/04/2021. As per the service of Notice considered as 01/04/2021. As per the service of Notice considered as 01/04/2021. As per Finance

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

CITA has further erred in not considering the fact that the Ld. A.O. had failed to provide any proof of issue/ service of notice u/s 148, despite specific request being made from the appellant. 2. Without prejudice to the issue of notice u/s 148, the Ld. CITA has further failed ... reassessment by way of various propositions. In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity of 'issue of notice'as well as ‘service of notice' u/s 148 of the Act. In ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged reassessment proceedings on the ground that there are no reasons to believe

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

further erred in not considering the fact that the Ld. A.O. had failed to provide failed to provide any proof of issue/ service of notice any proof of issue/ service of notice u/s 148, u/s 148, despite specific request being made from the despite specific request being made from ... ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged s challenged validity of ‘issue of notice of notice’ as well as ‘service of notice’ u/s 148 of the Act. In ground No. 2, the assessee u/s 148 of the Act. In ground No. 2, the assessee

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

Chandra Prakash Goplani, Bengaluru vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 166/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

stated that no notice nor appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) was received by the assessee. For Service of notices and orders etc. Section 282 and Rule 127 are relevant. If the technicalities are pitted against advancement of substantial justice, the courts will lean towards advancement of substantial justice

Shree Samaj Sevak Mahavirdal, Jamnagar vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 892/RJT/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 892/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Samaj Sevak Mahavirdal Vs. Cit(Exemption) Dhanbai No Delo, Shakmarket Road, Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Nr. Girdhari Temple, Aayakar Bhavan (Vejalpur), Jamnagar - 361001 Prahalad Nagar, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaats9848L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

issued noticed to the assessee. That the order of the Ld. CIT(E) does not talk about the service of notice upon the assessee. ITA No. 892/RJT/2024 A. Y.2025-26 Shri Samaj Sevak Mahavirdal 8. We further noted that it is older trust society seeking for the registration. The Trust society