“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

Arti Kamlesh Shah, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2210/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2210/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee

Rameshwar Dnyaneshwar Bandewar, Parbhani vs. ITO Ward Hingoli, Hingoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

NFAC affirming the action of the CPC. 5. When the matter was called for, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. However, the assessee has filed the written submissions relying on various decisions. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with

Nandkumar Chandra, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2328/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

impugned order passed by ld.CIT/NFAC. 5. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance of ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee. 6. I have

Jai Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. I.T.O, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 972/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyaljai Prakash Sharma, 15,Anand Nagar, Harmada Sikar Road, Jaipur – 302 013. Pan No.:Bcnps 9502H ..... Appellant Vs. Ito,Ward 4(4), Statue Circle, Jaipur – 302 001. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. G. M. Mehta, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44A

NFAC has erred in law and on facts in justifying the reopening the case on borrowed satisfaction without proving service of notice under section 148 of IT Act on the assessee. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. (1) ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal and confirming

Madasamy Chidambaram, Tenkasi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 2554/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2554/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Madasamy Chidambaram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Pagazhikoothar Street, Ward 4, Kallidaikurichi, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli 627 416. [Pan:Apcpm3848K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 13 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT

Section 147

that a pedantic approach should be made and this doctrine ought to have been applied in a rational and pragmatic manner as literally service of notice was only on 12.05.2024 when it was served manually by a verification team in Coimbatore and non-receipt of notice could have been ascertained

Siddhivinayak Sales Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 5532/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito, Ward 28(3)1 Sidhivinayak Sales 3Rd Floor, Tower No. 6 Corporation Vashi Railway Station G-45, Apmc Market I, Bldg, Navi Mumbai – Phase Ii, Mudi Bazar, 400 703. Sector 19, Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400703. Pan/Gir No. Adafs2280F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called. From the records, we noticed that the service of notice was effected upon the 2 Siddhivinayak Sales Corporation, Mumbai assessee through registered post acknowledgement due on the address supplied by the assessee, however the said ... notice was returned back with the endorsement ‘left’ and assessee has not provided any other address for effecting service. The notice was sent on last and best known address. Therefore, I consider the service of notice upon the assessee was ‘duly served’ and thus it was the duty

Shubhamangal Sadi Depo, Hingoli vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1652/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69

grounds of appeal.” 3. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, application for adjournment has been filed. Considering the fact that on the previous two dates of hearing also there was no representation and also considering

Trident Sales Corporation, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 5

assessee participated in assessment proceedings, hence, by virtue of provisions of section 292BB of the Act, the plea taken by the assessess, non service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and issuance of 6 notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act without signatures would not impair assessment proceedings ... income for the impugned assessment year and no notice u/s. 148 of the Act was ever served on the assessee. To substantiate non service of notice the assessee has placed on record copy of envelop in which the alleged notice u/s. 148 of the Act was sent to assessee

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4050/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., Room No.91, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. 2B Grant Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcr3491C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pitambar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.320/15-16/2297 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pitambar Das, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

however relied the report received from the AO and it was submitted that being a search case assessment service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not mandatory. 11. After giving thoughtful consideration to the material on record and the submissions, at the outset, we would like ... judgement in the case of Ashok Chaddha (supra) cannot be appreciated. ACIT vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd. 12. To consider the question of service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was legal, it will be appropriate to reproduce the case which the AO has tried to make

Janhit Samiti (Regd.), Patiala vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 64/CHANDI/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: The Ld. Cit(E). It Was Submitted That The Assessee Be Allowed An Opportunity To Represent Its Case Before The Ld. Cit(E) & Matter May Accordingly Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 80G(5)

applying for the approval and all the notices have been issued on the e-filing portal which cannot be taken as an effective service of notice and therefore, due to lack of communication, the assessee could not represent its case before the Ld. CIT(E). It was submitted that

Shriman Sampatlal Premraj Surana Charitable Trust, Nashik vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 2102/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing Ld. DR and on the basis of material available on record

Allahabad Bank Now Indian Bank, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS Circle), Panchkula

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 292/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT Sr. DR

Section 201Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

Indian Bank, Panchkula 5 as per form 35. Therefore, appellant not having access to TRACES system and not having access to physical service of notices explained the delay of 13 days between the date of service of order and date of order. However, the delay of further 444 days from ... date of service of notice to the date of filing of appeal is attributed by the appellant to the lack of availability of time and ongoing audit. However, this shows that the appellant was casual in attitude. Appellant had also mentioned wrong FY and AY while filing form 35 which

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Spark Gems, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3617/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee despite service of notices sent on the registered e-mail ID and RPAD. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is decided on merits. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Spark Gems, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Spectrum Talent Management Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 3313/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3313/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Spectrum Talent Management Dcit Private Limited, Vs. Cpc, Bangalore, B-46, Retreat Apartments, 20, Karnataka. 1.P. Extension, Delhi. Pan No. Aarcs4776M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80ASection 80J

assessee was dismissed by the Addl./JCIT(Appeals). 7. It is observed that the ground raised by the assessee in respect of non service of notice and not giving opportunity prior to passing intimation which goes to the very validity of the order passed

Prashant, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Kanpur

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

ITA 514/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraprashant, V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) 2-B, Wazidpur, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Aaykar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Admpk9965F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 254(3)Section 50C

from tax u/s 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. AO has erred in completing reassessment without issuance and service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as required under Law. 3. That the Id.AO has erred in reopening assessment ... opportunity to the assessee. He also submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer was an exparte order qua the assessee, passed after service of notice of hearing dated 30.11.2019 by affixture. The date of compliance was fixed on 06.12.2019.The time available after affixture of aforesaid notice of hearing

Abhay Singh, Lucknow vs. D/ACIT-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 321/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Abhay Singh V. Dcit/Acit-3 10-A, Literacy House Lucknow Kanpur Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ankps4767R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

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

erred in confirming the action of JAO while issuing the notice u/s 148 without jurisdiction and without proper service of notice. 3 Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of JAO while issuing the notice u/s 148 considering assessee has not filed the return Ignoring

Rakesh Saxena, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 823/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 17(2)Section 263Section 40

case on merits. Thus the appeal was adjourned to 27-08-2024. It is thereafter no Representation from the assessee in spite of service of notices. This clearly shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal further. 6. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR Shri A.P. Singh appearing

Jitendra Amrutlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 517/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Your Honour On 10-12-2024, You Are Requested To Adjourn The Above Referred Matters & Oblige. Sorry For Inconvenience In The Matters”. Thus, The Assessee Has Not Spelt Out Any Reason For Seeking Adjournment In Spite Of Service Of Notices. Further, Perusal Of The Assessment Orders Also Make It Clear The Same Were Ex-Parte Before The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

oblige. Sorry for inconvenience in the matters”. Thus, the assessee has not spelt out any reason for seeking adjournment in spite of service of notices. Further, perusal of the assessment orders also make it clear the same were ex-parte before the Assessing Officer. 2.1 However, the assessee filed ... which the Tribunal was pleased to remand the proceedings before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that despite service of notices, before CIT(A) no one appeared on behalf of the assesses. No written response was also made. Despite this, the Tribunal placed the matter back before