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

M/S Growfast Agency Private Limited, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kolkata - II, Kolkata

In the result all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1757/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year 2008-09 M/S. Growfast Agency Private Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Mr.Rajan Poddar, Fca, Kolkata-Ii, M/S.Poddar & Associates , Aayakarbhawan, Chartered Accountants, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata – 700 069. Mercantile Bulding,(First Floor), Block-D, Kolkata-700001. Pan: Aaccg 9928 J Assessment Year 2008-09 Vs. M/S. Everest Dealer Private Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii, Aayakarbhawan, Ltd., Mr.Rajan Poddar, Fca, P-7, Chowringhee Square, M/S.Poddar & Associates , Kolkata – 700 069. Chartered Accountants, 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Mercantile Bulding,(First Floor), Block-D,Kolkata- 700001. Pan:Aabce 8698 N (Respondent) (Appellant) Department By: : Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By: Mr.Ganesh Dutt Advocate, Assessment Year 2009-10 Vs. M/S. `Prudential Dealcom Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii, Pvt.Ltd., 9/12, Lal Bazar Aayakarbhawan, Street, 2Nd Floor, E-Block, P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata-700 001 Kolkata – 700 069. Pan:Aaecp 5044 L (Respondent) (Appellant) Department By: : Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By: Mr.Marus Tiwari, Fca Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2015 Order Per Bench: Through This Batch Of Appeals, Different Assessees 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. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Of All The Cases In This Batch Are Similar

For Appellant: Mr.Ganesh Dutt Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68