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

Natarajan Prabhu, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Kanchipuram

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2332/CHNY/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2332/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Natarajan Prabhu V. The Income Tax Officer, Old No.42, New No.52, Ward-1, Kumar Street, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram. Tamil Nadu-631 501. [Pan: Awtpp6028L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Padmanabhan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026 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 (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 20.04.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2015- 16. Grounds Of Appeal 1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Nfac), Delhi ("Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Cit(A) Dated 20.04.2026 Is Without Jurisdiction & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Equity, Natural Justice, Fair Play & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Adjudication On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Mr. Padmanabhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 139Section 148Section 282Section 54Section 54F

Sh. K.Pondurai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/CHNY/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2179/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri K. Pondurai, V. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.3/4-A, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Income Tax, Kelambakkam, Chennai-603 103. Non-Corp Ward-22(1), [Pan: Aaepp8065A] Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. J. Prabhakar, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026 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 (A), Addl. / Jcit (A)-1, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Ahmedabad, Dated 20.02.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2012-13. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Learned Jcit (A)-1 Ahmedabad Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Pretext That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is On Account Of Alleged Indifference On The Part Of The Appellant. 2. The Learned Jcit (A) Failed To Notice That The Demands Raised Qua The Impugned Intimation Came To His Notice Only On The Basis Of A Recovery Notice Showing Unreconciled Outstanding Demand Framed Allegedly Under Section 143(1) Which Was Not Served Upon Him.

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234C