“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

Sarita Konda, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 2/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.02/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarita Konda Camelia Flat No.15, Block A01, 4Th Floor, Greenville City, Boriyakala, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aukps1814J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding appeal without service of notice. Resultantly, appellate order is illegal & unsustainable. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits. The appellate order passed ... 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 11 Sarita Konda Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) proceedings before the first appellate authority

Pramila Gokuldas Daga Girls College, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

ITA 547/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 546 & 547/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pramila Gokuldas Daga Girls College Bal Ashram Parisar, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aaatp4369D

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 10(23)(c)Section 144Section 147Section 148

come forth with three fold contentions, viz. (i) that the assessment framed by the A.O in absence of valid service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself; (ii) that though notice ... Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee trust despite having been afforded four 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, we find substance in the contention

Pramila Gokuldas Daga Girls College, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

ITA 546/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 10(23)(c)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Sh. Tilak Raj, Hoshiarpur vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sanat Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

address in Portugal. Copies of these letters are available at page No. 35 and 36 of the Paper Book. Therefore, as far as service of notice under Section 148 is concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee. The more specific reason

Atul Finlease, Jamnagar vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Jamnagar

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

ITA 875/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.875/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Atul Finlease. Vs. The Dcit Circle-2(1), C/O Atul Automotives, Rajkot Jamnagar Jamnagar Highway, Hapa. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfa3518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :21/01/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :23/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

towards departmental proceedings and has not furnished even single reply during assessment except filing TR in compliance of notice u/s 148. Despite the service of notices through registered e-mail as well as through its e-filing account in e-proceedings, assessee is not bothered about the pending assessment proceedings

Anupama Jewellery, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non-Corp Ward 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 139/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anupama Jewellery .......... Appellant Koithara, M.G.. Road, Ernakulam 682016 [Pan: Aacfa2568H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corpoarte Ward - 1(1), Kochi Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.01.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 06.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. He Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Jewellery. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 24.11.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 97,310/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.12.2919 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 23,97,310/-. While Doing So, The 2 Anupama Jewellery Ao Made Addition Of 50% Of The Sales Made During The Demonetisation Of Rs.46,00,000/- By Holding That The Sale Were Abnormal.

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

Section 143(3)

appeal before us in the present appeal. 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 AO made addition

Bhav Singh Rajput, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-5(4), Bhopal

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 492/IND/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2016-17 Bhav Singh Rajput Ito -5(4) 4, Leeladhar Bhopal बनाम/ Narlashankari Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Atgps2541H Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2025

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 54B

claim . 5. The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT(A) , but could not produce any documentary evidence to prove service of notice vide email id of the assessee as stated in Form 35. 6. We have heard the rival submission and considered the materials on record

Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath, Vaijnath vs. ITO Ward 1(5) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2253/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80P

limine without condoning the delay. 6. 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

Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath, Parali Vaijnath vs. ITO Ward 1(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2252/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80P

Shree Mevasa Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Mevasa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dwarka

ITA 660/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.660/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Mevasa Seva Sahkari Mandali Ito Ward-1, Dwarka. Vs. Limited. Mahesh Paun Advocate, Shreeji Chambers, 17-Nava Para, Near Sbi, Jam-Khambhaliya-361305. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamas6799K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :19/12/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :22/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

noted that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the case but the order is silent on service of notice upon the assessee. We further observed that the assessment was frame ex-parte by the Ld. AO. We note that the assessee has not made

Nainu Bhadu, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1129/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1129/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Nainu Bhadu, Vs. The Ito, Plot No.1, Laxminarayan Society, Ward – 1, Kadodara, Tal – Palsana, Surat - 394327 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Avqpn6835M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

stood vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to non- service of notice u/s 250 of the Act at the e-mail Id given in the Form No. 35. The e-mail Id for issue of notice

Mannam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ernakulam

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

ITA 667/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

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

Section 56Section 80HSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appeal before us. When this matter was called upon for hearing no one appeared from the side of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, we are proceeding to decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders

Joel Jewellery Works, Thrissur vs. ITO WD-2(2), Thrissur

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

ITA 555/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Joel Jewellery Works .......... Appellant Chiyaram P.O., Thrissur 680006 [Pan: Aagfj1072R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(2), Thrissur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Jewellery. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 26.01.2017 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 5,00,140/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 10.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

appeal before me in the present appeal. 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 solitary issue arises in the present appeal

Sharafudeen Uchumal Kuruvankandy, Kannur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kannur

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

ITA 362/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

Section 250(6)

Sri.Sharafudeen Uchumal Kuruvankandy. 3. Today when the matter has been called for hearing. No body appears from the side of assessee, despite the service of notice by the registry. Therefore, we are adjudicating the appeal as per law. 4. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities

Kerala Film Producers Association, Ernakulam vs. ITO Exemption Circle, Kochi

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

ITA 106/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

four grounds of appeal before us. When the matter was called for hearing, nobody has appeared from the side of the assessee, despite service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter as per the material available on record. 3. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders

Shree Shanti Industries, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 545/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 545/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Shanti Industries Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Abcfs3156Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee firm despite having been afforded four 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 in the contention

M/S Shri Mangalam Traders, Mahasamund, Mahasamud vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund, Mahasamud

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

ITA 538/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.538/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shri Mangalam Traders 1, Village-Parsada, Post- Bemcha, Tehsil: Mahasamund-493 445 (C.G.) Pan : Abdfs1546F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Krishibhavan Andhoor, Kannur University Campus vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Aayakar Bhawan

Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

ITA 749/COCH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

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

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 233Section 234ESection 273B

Being aggrieved, appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceeded to dispose the same. 6. The only issue arises for our consideration is whether

Krishibhavan Andhoor, Kannur University Campus vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Aaykar Bhawan

Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

ITA 748/COCH/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

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

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 233Section 234ESection 273B

Krishibhavan Andhoor, Kannur University Campus vs. DCIT, CPC - TDS, Aaykar Bhawan

Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

ITA 747/COCH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

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

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 233Section 234ESection 273B