← All Phrases

“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
75
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
73
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
68
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
68
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
63
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

Punjabhai Alabhai Madam, Devbhumi Dwarka vs. ITO WD 1 Dwarka, Jamnagar

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

ITA 606/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 606/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Punjabhai Alabhai Madam, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, 75/1, Vadi Area Bharatpur, Dwarka – 360510, Bhanavad, Nr. Hanuman Mandir, Jamnagar Devbhumi, Dwarka – 360510 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dfjpm4987R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 28.06.2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 65,246/- Imposed By The Ld. Ao U/S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 271B

response. We note that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) talked about the issue of notice and do not talk about the service of notice upon the assessee. We further noted that the Ld. AO ITA No. 606/RJT/2024 A. Y.2018-19 Punjabhai Alabhai Madam Vs. ITO has passed

Jadhav Deore Associates, Pune vs. ITO TDS-2, ACIT-TDS, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as ‘Infructuous’

ITA 1526/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandrasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Pathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 226(3)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250

appeal(s) before the Tribunal. 4. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeals with the able assistance of ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative

Jadhav Deore Associates, Pune vs. ITO TDS-2, ACIT TDS, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as ‘Infructuous’

ITA 1525/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandrasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Pathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 226(3)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250

appeal(s) before the Tribunal. 4. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeals with the able assistance of ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative

Jadhav Deore Associates, Pune vs. ITO TDS -2, ACIT, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as ‘Infructuous’

ITA 1524/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandrasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Pathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 226(3)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250

appeal(s) before the Tribunal. 4. When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeals with the able assistance of ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative

Pankaj Dahyabhai Shah, Palghar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Palghar

ITA 3622/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Acit, Aayakr Bhavan, Pankaj Dahyabhai Shah Bidco Road, Palghar Flat No. 103, Saraswati Apt – 401404. Kunti Part, Ambaji Road, Tal Palghar, Dist – 401404. Pan/Gir No. Adyps0893A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)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, absence of 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 of law laid down

Chand Khan, Sada Shiv Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(2), City Center

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

ITA 109/AGR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147

illegality because the case was time barred. 2. That learned CIT appeal has confirmed by passing order dated 29/01/2024 in want of proper service of notice is illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. That no proper and adequate opportunity was provided by the learned ITO and as well ... notice U/S 143(2) was issued or served to the appellant thus without issuing any notice U/S 143(2) (1) and without servicing the notice no assessment order can be passed by the AO thus the whole assessment order is illegal in the eye of law. Case

ACIT, Circle - 1, Belagavi vs. Rohit Parasharam Patil, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds of appeal stands accordingly partly allowed

ITA 71/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 071/Pan/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 253(2)Section 69

23/12/2017. The said return of the assessee was initially processed summarily u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by service of notice dt. 24/09/2018 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act the case of the assessee was subjected to complete scrutiny. Owning to assessee’s effective failure to explain nature

Shrenikkumar Natvarlal Vora, New Pashupati Market vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

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

ITA 529/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Shrenikkumar Natvarlal Vora, I.T.O., 1012 New Pashupati Market, Ring Ward 2(2)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395002 (Gujarat) Aayakar Bhavan, Pan No. Aalpv 6626 N Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

assessee while filing appeal, provided e- mail address pankajvoraappeal@gmail.com and at the same time, the assessee opted option “No” for the purpose of service of notice through e-mail. We find that the ld. CIT(A) in para 3.1 of his order recorded that the notices were sent

Oriya Samaj Nagpur, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune, Nagpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 290/NAG/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2023-2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

strongly opposed the request of the assessee to remit the issues back to the file of learned CIT(E). He submitted that despite service of notice the assessee is not responded and therefore, the learned CIT(E) has rightly rejected the application for registration and approval under

Oriya Samaj Nagpur, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune, Nagpur

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

ITA 289/NAG/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2023-2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

strongly opposed the request of the assessee to remit the issues back to the file of learned CIT(E). He submitted that despite service of notice the assessee is not responded and therefore, the learned CIT(E) has rightly rejected the application for registration and approval under

Vanita Diliprao Dehankar, Amravati vs. ITO Ward -3, Amravati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2017-2018. 2. None appeared for assessee despite service of notice. I accordingly, proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the Learned DR. 2 ITA.No.207/NAG./2024 3. Facts of the case

Cheeran Jose Shunson, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayoor

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

ITA 659/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cheeran Jose Shunson .......... Appellant Cheeran House, Kottapadi Thrissur 680505 [Pan: Dpaps4426C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor, Thrissur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 50C

appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. 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. 5. On a mere reading of the assessment

Harinder Kaur, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3), Mohali

In the result, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand on de novo basis

ITA 982/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 982/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Harinder Kaur, Vs. The Ito-6(3), बनाम Mohali Mohindra Complex, H.No. 9, H O. Hardaspur, 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Buspk5188G अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

justified in confirming the order of the assessing 982-Chd-2024 Harinder Kaur, Patiala 4 officer which was passed without the service of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, which is sine quo non. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(s) is not justified

Shummy Poulose Puthanangady, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1448/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

opened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act for filing your return of income within 30 days from the date of service of notice u/s.148 of the Act. However, you have failed to comply to the said notice. 2. As per information available, you had made transaction

Mukesh Kumar Mittal, Surajpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 4/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.04/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mukesh Kumar Mittal Bhaiyathan Road, Post-Surajpur (C.G)-497 229 Pan: Amlpm8514A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

same. 16. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee despite having been afforded three opportunities vide impugned service of notices electronically through ITBA had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. At the same time, I find substance

Mazhuvannoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No.E21, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Ernakulam

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

ITA 421/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mazhuvannor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 635, Mazhuvannoor South Mazhuvannoor P.O. Ernakulam 686669 [Pan: Aabam9326M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward - 1(1) C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Kochi 682018 Appellant By: -------None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.01.2025

For Appellant: -------None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80P

Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 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. Regarding the interest income received from Treasury

Maheshwari Marwadi Balaji Mandir Satana, Satana vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 835/PUN/2024[not applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2024 Maheshwari Marwadi Balaji Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Mandir Satana, Satana Rural, Balaji Mandir Satana, Tilak Road Satana Tal. Baglan, Satana- 423301. Pan : Aaitm0393C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Chandra Vijay Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Aa Of The It Act. 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 Chandra Vijay
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

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

Barach Kahi Foundation, Kolhapur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2660/PUN/2024[A.Y.2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2660/Pun/2024 Barach Kahi Foundation, Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. 34/A, Sarnoba Twadi, Ujlaiwadi, Kolhapur- 416004. Pan : Aajcb4427A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None : Revenue By : Shri Chandra Vijay Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Aa Of The It Act. 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. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal After Hearing Ld. Dr As Well As On The Basis Of Material Available On Record.

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A

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

Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalna vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 1670/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1670/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Patsanstha Maryadit, Kasturi 47, Azad Maidan, Near Saibaba Temple, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Abmfs8514J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 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 Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

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

Kushal Bharat Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1099/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kushal Bharat Realcon Pvt. Ltd………………………….....Appellant 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aahcm3213B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddhharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 27, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 192 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,15,430/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

perusing the materials available on record, find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex parte order without ensuring proper service of notice thereby denying the adequate opportunity to present the case by the assessee. We also find that the notices sent