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

Link Towers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 680/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year:2011-12 Link Towers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Rsvpc &Company, 41A, Kolkata-2, A.J.C.Bose Road, Suite No.613, Aayakarbhawan, Kolkata-700014. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Rep. By Shri Lokesh Kr.Mishra, Ar Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aabcl 8565 B Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2009-10 Twinst Tradelink (P)Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Rsvpc &Company, 41A, Kolkata-I, A.J.C.Bose Road, Suite No.613, Aayakarbhawan, Kolkata-700014. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Rep. By Shri Lokesh Kr.Mishra, Ar Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aadct 1286 D Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S.Adhishwar Vinimay Pvt.Ltd., Vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit Aayakarbhawan, No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700013. Rep. By None Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Pan : Aajca 2358 P Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S.Integral Barter Pvt. Ltd., Vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(4), Kolkata Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit Aayakarbhawan, No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700013. Rep. By None Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Pan : Aacci 5359 M Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S.Coral Commo Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(1), Kolkata Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit Aayakarbhawan, No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700013. Rep. By None Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Morgan Vyapaar (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. C.I.T - I, Kolkata

In the result all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 995/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm A.Y.2008-09 Morgan Vyapaar (P)Ltd, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Block-A, 3Rd Floor, 9, Lalbazar Kolkata-I, Street, Kolkata-700001. Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Pan Aaecm 5308 C Kolkata – 700 069. A.Y.2008-09 M/S. Heaven Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-5/13, Safdarjung Development Kolkata-Ii, Area, 1St Floor, Near Saint Anthony’S Aayakarbhawan, School, New Delhi-110016. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Pan Aabch 9132 L Kolkata – 700 069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S.M.Surana, Advocate In Ita No.995/Kol/2013 Mr.Sujoy Sen, Advocate In Ita No.1111/Kol/2013 Department By : S/Shri S. Srivastava, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing :26.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2016 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm Through These Batch Of Appeals, Different Assesses Assail The Correctness Of Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioners Of Income-Tax (Cit) U/S 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To The Captioned Assessment Years. Since All These Appeals Are Based On Largely Similar Facts & Common Grounds Of Appeal, We Are Proceeding To Dispose Them Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: S.M.Surana, Advocate inFor Respondent: S/Shri S. Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 282Section 68