“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

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

Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

ITA 746/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

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. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kannothumchal

Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

ITA 723/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

Sree Narayana Sales and Services, Edapally, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 713/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Narayana Sales & Services .......... Appellant Koonamthai Edapally, Ernakulam 682024 [Pan: Aawfs8196H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle (1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Kochi 682018 Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025

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

Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

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, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. From the order ... clear that notices of hearing were issued through ITBA portal. In my considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income

Anakkara Food Processing and Exports Private Limited, Anakkara vs. ACIT, Tirur

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

ITA 582/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Paulson K.P., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

Food Processing and Export Pvt. Ltd. issued through ITBA portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income ... Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. 6. Respectfully following the above judgement

Anakkara Food Processing and Exports Private Limited, Edappal vs. ACIT, Tirur

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

ITA 581/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Paulson K.P., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

Royal Educational Society and Research Centre, Kunnamkulam vs. Asst. CIT, Exemption Circle, Kochi

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

ITA 558/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Royal Educational Society & .......... Appellant Research Centre Chiramangad, Akkikkavu Kunnamkulam 680604 [Pan: Aagfr5507H] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Exemption Circle, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Cbm Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri CBM Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 282(1)

clear that notices of hearing were issued through ITBA portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income ... Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. 6. Respectfully following the above judgement

Ranjit Thakur, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 1121/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

return of income. The Learned AO has completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 16.11.2018 without servicing of notice upon to assessee u/s 148 and made the following additions - (i) Addition of Rs. 5,87,200/- on account of alleged unexplained investment ... categorically confirmed that notice issued on 28.03.2018 was not served and was returned back by post. Therefore, effectively, there was no service of notice u/s 148 of the Act as per the time line given and thereby making the 12 Ranjit Thakur assessment u/s 144 of the Act becomes void

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shri. Balaji Ramchandra Ande, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 625/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah And Shri Rohit S TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

appellant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was called earlier on two occasions. However, none appeared for the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits, after hearing the Learned DR. 5. The issue in the present appeal relates

Punam Vishnuraj Motwani, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5974/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Venugopa C. NairFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

condone a delay which itself was non condone a delay which itself was non-existent, when computed from existent, when computed from service of notices. 2. The Learned CIT (A) err The Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law ed in facts and circumstances

Income Tax Officer, Shillong vs. The Little Stars Trust, Assam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 64/GTY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.64/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

impugned order passed by ld.Addl/JCIT(A). 4. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee. The Little Stars Trust

Suman Ahmed, Gauripur vs. ITO, Ward- Dhubri, Dhubri

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

ITA 45/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kushal SoniFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Sekar Das

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment ... rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice and orders which read as follows : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. In view of the above, it is essential that before any action is taken, communication of the notice must be done in terms

Rama Katowal Chetry, Golaghat vs. ITO Ward Golaghat, Golaghat

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

ITA 106/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

Nos.105 and 106/GTY/2024 Rama Katowal Chetry 5. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to decide the appeal with the able assistant from ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee. 6. We have heard

Rama Katowal Chetry, Golaghat vs. ITO Ward Golaghat, Golaghat

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

ITA 105/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

Dhurjyoti Tea Company Private Limited, Pengree vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Digboi

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

ITA 104/GTY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.103 & 104/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 5. 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 from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee

Dhurjyoti Tea Company Private Limited, Pengree vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Digboi

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

ITA 103/GTY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.103 & 104/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

Vipulbhai Shambhubhai Ramani, at Virnagar, Tal. Jasdan, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward- 2 (1) (2), Rajkot

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

ITA 833/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 833/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Vipulbhai Shambhubhai Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(1)(2) Ramani It Office, New Aayakar Bhawan, At. Virnagar, Tal: Jasdan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 360060 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awipr8457J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 13 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/ 01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax( Appeals), Vide Order Dated 08.03.2024, Which Is Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.12.2022. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2021-22, Is Barred By Limitation By 147 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Explained The Delay Stating That Assessee`S Wife, Smt. Kailashben Vipulbhai Ramani Was Ill & Suffering Severe Illness & Due To Such Bonafide Reason, Assessee Was Not Able To Vipulbhai Shambhubhai Ramani V. Ito Ay. 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 5

parte order, because the assessee did not appear before him and did not submit the relevant documents and evidences, due to non-service of notices, on the Vipulbhai Shambhubhai Ramani v. ITO AY. 2021-22 assessee, during the appellate proceedings. We note that a perusal of the body

Sukhminder Kaur, Banur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jagroan

ITA 695/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year : 2012-13 Sukhminder Kaur Vs. Income Tax Officer, 69, Ward No.10, Ward – 2, Jagroan Banur , Punjab – 140 601 Tan/ Pan : Ahfpk 0713 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Adll. Cit, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 01 2025 O R D E R

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Adll. CIT, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148

section 147 of the Act in as much as the assessment has been framed u/s 147 by the non- jurisdictional officer without any service of notice u/s 148 and in view thereof the assessment framed is illegal, untenable and therefore unsustainable. 4. That the reasons recorded are based on incorrect

Raman Pillai Sivasankara Pillai, Baltana vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 770/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Raman Pillai Sivasankara Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Pillai, #1590, Saini Vihar, International Taxation, Phase 3, Baltana, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cjcpp4391J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20 .01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

that the notice under Section 148 was never served to the appellant. The department has not adduced any evidence to prove the proper service of notice to the appellant and hence in the absence of proper service of notice, the proceedings cannot be sustained. 5. That authorities below have erred ... No.l069/CHD/2004 of Chandigarh Bench. 9. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee, also argued at length on the issue that there was no service of notice u/s 148, either by post or by way of affixture and service of the valid notice is a prerequisite and without their being any service

Punam Vishuraj Motwani, Mumbai vs. ITO-27)2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5977/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rahul Chudhary () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Venugopa C. NairFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271F

condone a delay which itself was non condone a delay which itself was non-existent, when computed from existent, when computed from service of notices. 2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law Learned CIT (A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law Learned

Aastitva Jain Family Trust, Ashoknagar vs. The Income Tax Officer CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

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

ITA 88/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 164(1)Section 234Section 249(2)

provisions of section 282 of the 1961 Act read with Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which deals with the service of notice, summons, requisitions, order and other communications. I direct the ld. CIT(Appeals) to make enquiry as to the manner in which the service was effected