“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

ITO 10(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pushpak Realities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4812/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 3

challenged quashing of the notices u/s.148 in various grounds of appeals. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee despite of service of notice, therefore, the appeals are being disposed off after considering the relevant material and the arguments to be verified by the ld. DR. The validity

Aro Equipments Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2514/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 148

margin on the alleged bogus purchase is already declared by the assessee in his ITR.” 3. None appeared for the Assessee. Even after service of notices except filing the adjournment application on an earlier occasion, neither the Assessee nor the representative of the Assessee have appeared before the Tribunal though

Nayi Pehal Welfare Society, Panipat vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 29/CHANDI/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 29/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Nayi Pahal Welfare Society, Vs. The Cit (Exemptions), बनाम 97, Basant Nagar, Chandigarh Jk Public School, Panipat 132102 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacan5829K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

case of ‘Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs CIT(E) Chandigarh’, CWP No. 21028/2023 dated 4.3.2024 and requested that as the service of notice was solely on portal which could not be seen by the Assessee, therefore, as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court’s decision ... presumed to have no knowledge of the proceedings. The ld. Counsel further submitted that as such, it cannot be treated as a valid service of notice. Accordingly, the ld. counsel requested to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. DR relied

Anand Sawroop, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Nahan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 709/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50Section 50C

deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. It is, however, to be noted that ... notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. 10. Since the facts on record

Elamkulam Rural Co-Operative Society Limited, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirur

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

ITA 656/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoelamkulam Rural Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Society Ltd. Ward - 1, Tirur Cherukara P.O. Vs. Malappuram 679340 [Pan: Aaaae7167K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called on nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits as under. 5. The solitary issue that

The Kannadiparamba Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kannadiparamba vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kannothumchal

ITA 575/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raokannadiparamba Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer -1 Bank Ltd. Aayakar Bhavn Kannadiparamba P.O. Vs. Kannothumchal 670006 Kannur 670604 [Pan: Aabat1717F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)

order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before he Tribunal. When the appeal was called on, nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceed to dispose off the appeal as under. 5. The assessee is a primary

Pullan Paulose Paul, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2 (4), Thrissur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/COCH/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raopullan Paulose Paul The Income Tax Officer 19/45, Pullan House Ward - 2(4), Thrissur Vs. North Chalakudy 680307 [Pan: Akjpp5922B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 142(1)

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called on, nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits as under. 5. I find that

Narayana Swamy Rajesh, Palakkad vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 194/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raonarayana Swamy Rajesh The Income Tax Officer Flat 8E, 6/217/48 Pranavam Apartments Vs. Vaidyanathapuram 678011 [Pan: Artpr9383B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 89

aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the appeal was called on, nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, after hearing the learned Sr. DR I proceeded to dispose of the appeal as under. 5. The solitary issue that arises

Meenthrackal Abdul Khader Shajahan, Aluva vs. The ITO, Aluva

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

ITA 521/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raomeenthrackal Abdul Khader Income Tax Officer Shajahan Aluva 8/469, Meentharackal House Vs. Kunnatheri Thaikkattukara Choornikkara, Aluva 683106 [Pan: Bczps0663M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 271BSection 44ASection 44B

Chartered Accountant. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called on nobody attended, despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR I proceeded to dispose off the appeal as under. 3 Meenthrackal Abdul Khader Shajahan

Salkara Restaurant, Calicut vs. The ITO, Kozhikkode

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 79/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raosalkara Restaurant The Income Tax Officer-1(3) West Nadakkavu Aayakar Bhavan Vandipetta Vs. Mananchira Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673001 [Pan: Abyfs8116J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 143(1)

Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 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 off the appeal as under. 7. The issue in the appeal

Nirmal Kumar (As Legal Heir/Representative of Late Mishrilal Sharnickraj), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1191/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shirish C. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 68

requirements as stipulated in quasi-judicial proceedings. 3. The impugned order is liable to be quashed for non- compliance with stipulated procedures for service of notice in assessment proceedings as well as in appellate proceedings. There is no confirmation of service of notice to assessee/ appellant by way of physical ... service of notice/ mahazar report. 4. The Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,57,00,000/- to the income of the appellant. The addition to the income is bad both in law and on facts and is liable to be deleted in entirety. 5. The Assessing

Chandra Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4697/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Not Admitting The Appeal By Invoking The Provision Of Section 249(4) On The Ground That Assessee Has Not Made Payment For Advancement Of Tax. He Pointed Out That Assessee

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

filed its return of income and even the notice u/s.148 of re-assessment proceedings have not been done exparte due to non-service of notice. Thus, when assessee has not filed the return of income, there is no question of paying any advance tax. The claim of the assessee

Jagtar Singh Bassi, Jalandhar vs. ACIT (Int. Taxation), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 309/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 309/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jagtar Singh Bassi, Vs. The Acit C/O Y.K.& Co., बनाम (Int Taxation), Chartered Accountants, Circle, 4Th Floor, Ambika Tower, Chandigarh Police Lines, Jalandhar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Gfxpb5393R अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 309Section 69

High Court has held that re- assessment notice must be served on the Assessee. It is a burden on Revenue to prove the service of notice sent by speed post. In the case of wrong address, no service of notice, the re-assessment proceedings are not valid. As per income ... Gupta’, 382 ITR 613 (Delhi) held as under:- “REASSESSMENT-NOTICE-SERVICE OF VALID NOTICE WITHIN LIMITATION- CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR REASSESSMENT-BURDEN OF PROOFOF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON DEPARTMENT-PARTICIPATION IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE DOES NOT RESULT INWAIVER OF NECESSITY OF SERVICE OF NOTICE-OBJECTION RAISED TONON-SERVICE

Natarajan, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Itward-1(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 123/CHNY/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148

said assessment year and he directed the appellant to file her return of income in the prescribed form within 30 days from the service of notice. Upon receipt of the said notice, the appellant in her reply dated 26.04.2018, pointed out that she is a permanent resident of Chennai

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3219/MUM/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 246ASection 271(1)(b)

affixture by the Ward Inspector on 22.09.2010. According to the ld. CIT(A), it is a settled principle of law that service of notice by affixture at the last known address provided by assessee to the Department is a valid notice. In the present case of the assessee, order u/s.271

Sunil Kumar Kukreja, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-4, Hisar

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1001/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Kukreja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 10A, Rajiv Nagar, Ward-4, Hisar Hisar Haryana – 125001 Haryana (Pan:Bcopk6853N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

erred in confirming the order u/s. 144 of the Act, passed by the AO- Ward -4 Hisar without affording proper opportunity and without service of notice as per rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, issued by AO and by CIT(A). 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... erred in confirming the order u/s. 144 of the Act, passed by the AO, Ward-4, Hisar, without service of notice u/s. 142(1) dated 12.12.2017 and without service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that AO made the addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle -2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Narendra Maganmal Kothari, Nagpur

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 330/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 133(6)Section 68

paid as bogus entries and made the additions in this regard. It is held by the jurisdiction High court that nonattendance or non- service of notices without anything more could not be reason enough to sustain the addition. 55. We further noticed that the company has declared sufficient Income

Fazle Raoof Sheikh, Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Ajmer

44. As a_ result, appeals-ITA No

ITA 381/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. ( Through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 69A

proceedings u/s 144 be not completed. 30. However, the assessee-appellant did not care and dare to reply the said notice despite service. Thereupon, notices were sent to the assessee even by registered post/speed post, but same were received back undelivered. In the given situation, the Assessing Officer ... fact remains that the assessee-appellant has not brought on record any material to justify his non appearance in the assessment proceedings despite service of notices. Once the assessee-appellant opted to remain absent from the assessment proceedings, it does not lie in his mouth that he was entitled

Fazle Raoof Sheikh, Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Ajmer

44. As a result, appeals-ITA

ITA 380/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. ( Through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 69A

Fazle Raoof Sheikh, Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Ajmer

44. As a result, appeals-ITA

ITA 379/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. ( Through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 69A