Section 282 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.501

Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 501 (Service of notice, generally) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 501 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 282 is Pr. CIT v. Silver Line (383 ITR 455), cited in 201 of the 613 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 282

Pr. CIT v. Silver Line
383 ITR 455 · 2016 · High Court
201
citing judgments

For reassessment under Section 147, the Assessing Officer must record reasons and communicate them to the assessee. An assessee's participation in proceedings pursuant to a Section 148 notice does not obviate the mandatory requirement of recording and communicating reasons or issuing a Section 143(2) notice.

CIT v. Chetan Gupta
382 ITR 613 · 2016 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings and subsequent assessment orders are invalid if the notice under Section 148 is not validly served, such as when issued to an incorrect address or when affixture is improper.

CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh
82 ITR 888 · 1971 · Supreme Court
42
citing judgments

For substituted service of notice by affixation to be valid, the serving officer must exercise all due and reasonable diligence to find the assessee or their agent, strictly adhering to the procedure under Rule 17 of Order V of the Civil Procedure Code. Failure to follow this proper procedure renders the service invalid and cannot sustain subsequent proceedings.

B.K Gooyee v. CIT
62 ITR 109 · 1966 · High Court
26
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, that is not signed by the Income Tax Officer is invalid and considered no notice at all, as the signature is an essential and integral part of the notice.

CIT v. Naveen Chander
323 ITR 49 · 2010 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Service of notice by affixture is invalid if it is not done in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically requiring the association of an independent local person.

B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT
107 ITR 409 · 1977 · Reported
16
citing judgments

For an assessee to be considered in default, a notice must be served in one of the modes provided by the Income Tax Act. Acquiring knowledge of a notice's issuance is not a substitute for proper service.

PCIT v. Broadway Shoe Co.
99 Taxmann.com 83 · 2018 · Reported
15
citing judgments

When no return is filed in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, a separate notice under section 143(2) is not required to make the assessment.

Ashish Plastic Industries v. ACIT
373 ITR 451 · Reported
14
citing judgments

An assessee must be allowed credit for income surrendered and disclosed in another year or by another group assessee to avoid impermissible double taxation.

Dy. CIT v. Oman International Bank SAOG
100 ITD 2185 · 2006 · ITAT
9
citing judgments
APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT (Exemption)
171 Taxmann.com 569 · 2025 · Reported
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 282

All Indian Ski & Hide Tanners and Merchants Associates, Chennai vs. CIT(E), Chennai

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

ITA 2115/CHNY/2026[2027-28]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2026AY 2027-28

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2115/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2027-28 All Indian Skin & Hide Tanners & V. The Commissioner Of Income Merchants Association, Tax (Exemption), No.43/53, Raja Muthiah Road, Periamet, Chennai. Chennai-600 003. [Pan: Aaata0492J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms. S. Vidhya, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Nayani Swapna, Cit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E), (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(E)’), Chennai Dated 28.03.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2027-28. Grouds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Honourable Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Is Without Jurisdiction, Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play. 2. The Honourable Cite Erred In Rejecting The Application In Form 10Ab Filed By The Appellant Trust Seeking Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 3. The Honourable Cite, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Trust Is In The Activity To Undertake Scientific Research & Initiatives To Control Pollution Caused By The Leather Tanning Industry & To Promote Environmentally Sustainable Manufacturing Processes, Rejected The Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

John and Marie Almeida Educational Trust, Chennai vs. CIT Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 3672/CHNY/2026[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2026

Bench: Honourable George George K & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3672/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - John & Marie Almeida Educational V. The Commissioner Of Income Trust, Tax (Exemptions), No.49, Flat No.3, Race View Apartments, Chennai. Cart Track Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaatj1526C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. J. Saravanan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Nayani Swapna, Cit. Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E), (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit (E)’), Chennai Dated 31.03.2026. Grouds Of Appeal A. For That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions) Chennai, [Cit (E)] Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Dated 31.03.2026 Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & Was Passed Ignoring The Facts & Merits Of The Case. B. For That The Ld. Cit(E) Failed To Appreciate That The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Dated 07.02.2026 Was Not Sent To Either Of The Registered Email Addresses Of The Assessee (Adrianj848@Gmail.Com Or Thanthonikrishna@Gmail.Com) But To Some Other Email, Viz., Rengarajanhr@Gmail.Com.

For Appellant: Mr. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT
Section 12ASection 282