“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Auranagbad., Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

company filed its returns declaring total income of ₹2,06,00,520/- & ₹2,28,99,200/- respectively. These returns of the assessee by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act were also subjected to scrutiny wherein a bullet addition

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Private Limited, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Vishal Sahebrao Mahajan, Thane vs. ITO Ward-10(3), Pune

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

ITA 1668/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Sahebrao Mahajan

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 253(5)

delay in filing the appeal from the date of order as appeal is filed within the prescribed time limits from the date of service of notice. I pray your honor to admit the appeal and allow me to contest the Appeal on merits and pray that justice should

Sangamner Vipassana Samiti, Sangamner vs. CIT(E), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1573/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

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

first application dated 30.03.2023 for final registration under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) was rejected on ex-parte basis without proper service of notices, the CIT(E) was not empowered to grant final registration under 12A on the basis of the fresh application dated 16.09.2023 filed under clause

Sangamner Vipassana Samiti, Sangamner vs. CIT(E), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd, Pune

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 628/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra, Judical Member & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 0628/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-5, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ajit Jain [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Manish Mehta [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 92C

subsequently revised on 31/03/2014 without variation of income declared in the original return. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In assessment proceedings upon coming to notice that, the assessee had undertaken certain international transactions

Arcil Cps 003 III Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 4400/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 2Section 250

dated 31.01.2023 for the A.Y. 2014-15, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte as despite services of notice, the assessee failed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). . It was argued on behalf of the appellant/assessee that the notice issued

Sri Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractor G Muralikrishna G vs. Satish & Co, Kaikaluruvs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 436/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan(Through Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 436/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sri Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Income Tax Officer, Contractors G Vs. Ward-1, Muralikrishna G V S Bhimavaram-534201. Satish & Co, Kaikaluru-521333, Eluru District. [Pan : Adefs2940Q] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K Siva Rama Kumar, Ar रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2024 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 25/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri K Siva Rama Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 250Section 250(6)

verify the notices issued by the NFAC and also the reason for not filing the appeal in time. He also submitted that the service of notice dated 01/10/2024 on the Managing Partner of the assessee-firm calling upon the firm to pay tax consequential to the dismissal of their appeal ... statement made in the petition that the assessee-firm was closed down on 31/03/2022 and it is only on the service of notice dated 01/10/2024 on the Managing Partner of the assessee-firm it has come to the notice of the assessee that the appeal

Faridabanu Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(1) Ahmedabad, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan

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

ITA 936/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.936/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Faridabanu Shaikh The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Humera Packaging Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Plot No.15,Nr. Sardar Palace Hotel Ahmedabad Sarkhej Sanand Highway, Sanand Ahmedabad – 380 055 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqgps 1044 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

therefore, we condone the delay. Besides this, the order passed by the CIT(A) is ex-parte and without mentioning any proper service of notice as contained in Paragraph No.4 of the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, it would be appropriate if this matter is remanded back

Himadri Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, (OSD), Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 821/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

fact, there was a delay of only 17 days in filing of appeal as could be seen from Form-35, the date of service of notice of demand was 20.04.2018 and appeal was filed on 06.06.2018. Ld. CIT(A) only on the submission of the Counsel of the appellant ... assessee has been dismissed on the ground of delay. On perusal of Form-35 it is apparent that the date of service of notice of demand was 20.04.2018 and there was no dispute that appeal had been filed on 06.06.2018. In this way there is a delay of only

Noman Hussain, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Mustaq Ahmad Mir, CostFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 270A(9)

with the appeal without passing any reasoned and speaking order on merits, thus causing great prejudice to the appellant. 3. That blatant non-service of notices at non-existent address as admitted by the Ld. A.O. in the order itself which resulted inordinate delay in filing the appeal late ... reasoned and speaking order on merits, thus causing great prejudice to the appellant. 3. That Ld CIT(A) has overlooked blatant non-service of notices at non-existent address as admitted by the Ld. A.O. in the assessment order itself which resulted in inordinate delay in filing the appeal late

Noman Husain, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Mustaq Ahmad Mir, CostFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 270A(9)

Bhupinder Singh Son of Sh. Gurmukh Singh, Punjab vs. The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh-1, C.R Building Himalaya Marg, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, Punjab

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 144Section 253Section 263

amount of Rs. 4,50,000 is just a bogus documents to create cash in hand. 10. That due to service of notice to the previous counsel of the assessee, the same was not received by the assessee. Further, due to old age and medical record of the assessee

Aliasagar Inayathusain Bohari, Jalgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Dhule

In the result, the appeal of the appellant for A

ITA 1160/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1160/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aliasagar Inayathusain Bohari, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Dhule. M/S. Saifee Machinery, Shop No.6, Opp. Panchayat Samiti Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon- 425405. Pan : Abapb5558K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.70,00,000 When The Impounded Material Is Covered In The Finalized Books Of Accounts Which Were Duly Audited Nothing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. It is also seen that the case is being listed continuously since 15.11.2023 and nobody has represented since last three hearings

Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-73(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3254/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the First Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rohatgi, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

been issuing notices on wrong email-id. He pointed that as per Form no. 35 the email-id given for service of notice was yogesh.gupta@conscient.in, whereas notices were sent to the assessee by the CIT(A) at ajay.gupta@conscient.in . He prayed that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits ... shall issue notice on the email-id provided by the 3 assessee in Form no. 35. The assessee on service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail. 5. In the result, impugned order is set side and appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

Grid India Power Cables Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is 6

ITA 1510/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 144

assessee. The 3 AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 5. The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is 6. allowed for statistical

Sri Projects, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1757/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 50

Assessee as under : “5.1 I have gone through the Assessment Order and submissions of the appellant. It is observed that the date of service of notice of 2 demand as declared by the appellant is 20/12/2018 and the appellant has filed appeal on 09/02/2019 which is beyond statutory time limit

Bharat Namdev Patil, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 1726/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by saying that despite service of notices, the appellant- assessee did not file any submission, detailed documents to 3 substantiate the grounds of appeal raised by him. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal

Zahir Shaikh Nazeer Patel, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1664/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Rajpurohit

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

appeal before this Tribunal. 4. When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide this appeal after hearing Ld. DR and on the basis of material available on record