“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

Shantirani Samarathamal Dagriya, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-34 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3467/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 142Section 144Section 234ASection 234FSection 271ASection 69A

financial background of the appellant. 4) The Ld.AO erred in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard and without proper service of notice. 5) The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC of the Income Tax Act. 6) The Ld.AO erred in imposing penalty u/s.234F

Sandha and Associates Private Limtied, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3824/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhriआअसं.3824/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Sandha & Associates P Ltd., D-92, Rose Wood City, Sector 49-50, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aawcs-0417-N बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -4(1), Hsiidc Building, Vaniya Kunj, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Udhyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgoan 122001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Ms. Priyanshi Agarwal, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 24.06.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Samyak Jain, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That At The Outset That The Cit(A) Without Any Notice To The Assessee Has Dismissed Appeal Of The Assessee In An Ex-Parte Proceedings. He Prayed For Restoring Appeal Back To The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Samyak Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT(DR)

that there is no mention of any notice to the assessee by the CIT(A) in the order, much less the fact of service of notice on the assessee. Considering entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo

Vashi Parivar Foundation, Thane vs. CIT (E), Pune

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

ITA 2084/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2084/Pun/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(vi)

approval u/s.80G(5)(ii) of the Act. 4. When the case was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee

Shri Salasar Hanuman Prachar Samati, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1(2), Swargate

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

ITA 2063/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2063/Pun/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee trust preferred 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. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal exparte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. At the outset, we find

Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 25, Kolkata (CIT(A)) contending that the entire proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act after service of notice under Section 148, is illegal, ab-initio, void and bad in law. It was contended that there was no failure on the part

Shaheen Begum Ishaq Mohammed, Aurangabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1960/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1960/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shaheen Begum Ishaq Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Mohammed, Aurangabad. H.No.1-23-44 Beside Mina Function Hall, Dedi Bazar, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Eimpm3589L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Return Of Income Was Not Filed By Her. The Case Was Reopened U/S 148 On The Basis Of Reason That The Assessee Along With Four

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared nor any request for adjournment was filed by the assessee 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

Subhash Chand, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose,

ITA 2451/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee on four occasions. Since there was no compliance from assessee's side, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in an ex-parte proceedings.4. A perusal of statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) reveals that apart from Subhas Chand, legal heir of deceased. Harish Chand had two more sons and the sale proceeds of agricultural land are stated to be divided among three sons of Harish Chand. However, this fact is unsubstantiated so far.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee is directed to respond to the notice served by the AO, without fail. The assessee shall furnish his current address/email-id for service of notice to the AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, if the current address of the assessee is different from

Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panvel, Aaykar Bhavan Panvel vs. Thanaram Peeraramji Chaudhary, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 1003/PUN/2024[2017-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2017-08

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Naina Chaurasia (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 46A(3)Section 69A

income, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice u/sec.142(1) on 13.12.2007 asking the assessee to file return of income in prescribed Form. Despite service of notice, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, obtained information u/sec.133(6) of the Act from the Banks

Kayakkodi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No F 1481, Kayakkodi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 251/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

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

Section 143(1)

come up in appeal before us. Today when the matter has been called up on one appear from the side of assessee despite service of notice. Therefore we proceeds to the decide case on the basis of material available on record. 5. The learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf

Laxmi Pati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department Noida

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2764/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2764/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Laxmi Pati Sharma, L 16/2A, Dlf Phase-2, Haryana 122022 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aosps-5811-H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

making submissions to the assessee shall pass a speaking order, in accordance with law. 5. The assessee/legal heirs of the assessee after service of notice shall appear before the CIT(A), without fail. 6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Prakash Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 730/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2764/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Laxmi Pati Sharma, L 16/2A, Dlf Phase-2, Haryana 122022 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aosps-5811-H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Keshava Reddy Nagireddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1), Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.463 & 464/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Keshava Reddy Nagireddy Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adcpn1614N] Circle (1) Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 05/03/2024, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

registered e-mail address of the assessee. As the assessee did not comply with the notices served on e-mail address, physical service of notices was made through postal department on 07.02.2022. The Assessing Officer observed that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee, but the assessee had not availed

Keshava Reddy Nagireddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1), Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

Saraswati Educational Society Regd., New Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

ITA 1889/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 263

ITBA and simultaneously on email of assessee on 30.03.24 (after passing order U/s.263 Dtd.29.03.24). (4,5) Thus, there is no legally valid service of notice vide above mode also since served after date of hearing i.e. 14.03.24 as well as after the date of impugned order U/s.263 which is Dtd.29.03.24 ... Saraswati Educational Society Vs. CIT(E) Hence it is a case where there is no legally valid service of notice U/s.263. No cognize of the service can be taken when service has been made subsequent to the date of hearing fixed. CASE LAWS Tulsi Tracom

Shrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1469/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1469/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shrinivas Vijaykumar Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Pune. Chidrewar, A-38, S.No.55, H.No.1, Sadbhav Co-Op. Housing Society, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Ahspc3607Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Carrying On The Business Of Real-Estate Consultant & 2 Allied Activities & Furnished His Return Of Income Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.5,13,056/-. Subsequently, A Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act Was Issued On The Basis Of Information Received From Acit, Circle-4(4), Mumbai That The Assessee Had Made Huge Cash Deposits In His Bank Accounts Maintained With M/S. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. However, No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To Notice U/S 148 Within 30 Days From The Date Of Service Of Notice. Thereafter, A Notice U/S 142(1) Was Issued & Assessee Furnished His Reply Along With Copy Of Bank Account, Copy Of Original Itr & Copy Of Registered Sale Deed. Thereafter Further Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer Requesting For Further Clarification On Account Of Cash Of Rs.54,24,870/- In Bank Account, But The Assessee Did Not Reply. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 On A Total Income Of Rs.59,37,926/- As Against The Income Declared By The Assessee In Its Return Of Income At Rs.5,13,056/-. Above Assessed Income Includes Unexplained Cash Deposits Of Rs.54,24,870/-.

For Appellant: None

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Credit Society Ltd. However, no return of income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 within 30 days from the date of service of notice. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued and assessee furnished his reply along with copy of bank account, copy of original ... before this Tribunal. 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared 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

Pukar Seva Pratishthan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 5371/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Khona, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Income- tax Rules, 1962. It was held as under, Notice-Service of notice-Method and manner of service of notice under statutory provisions - Charitable purpose - Registration Notice by Commissioner (Exemptions) - Notice and reminders not sent to assessee's e-mail address or otherwise but only reflected on e-portal ... Income- tax Rules, 1962. It was held as under, Notice-Service of notice-Method and manner of service of notice under statutory provisions - Charitable purpose - Registration - Notice by Commissioner (Exemptions) - Notice and reminders not sent to assessee's e-mail address or otherwise but only reflected on e-portal

Pukar Seva Pratishthan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 5370/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Khona, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Monarch Technobuild Private Limted, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 1287/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2012-13 C.O. No. 172/Mum/2024 A.Y. : 2012-13 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1287/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

therefore, on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the said company never existed. Hence, service of notice of non- existing company is bad in law and accordingly, entire re-assessment proceedings need to be quashed. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that there

Prathamesh Vivek Khot, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer National E Assessment Centre Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3091/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 156Section 270ASection 54F

dated 25/05/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.270A. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite of service of notice, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is decided on merits. 2 Shri Prathamesh Vivek Khot 3. From the perusal of the records it is seen

Manju Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4083/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Manju Gupta, Vs Acit, H.No.9/6654, Nehru Street Circle-4(1), Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi-110032. Pan-Aajpg8890R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurabh Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2024

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250

documents and facts filed during the proceedings in correct perspective. 6. That the whole re-asstt. Proceedings are bad in law for non service of notice U/s. 148 within statutory time limit. 7. That the asstt. is without jurisdiction for non service of statutory notice U/s. 143 (2) within