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

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax- Jalgaon

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

ITA 1948/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1948/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 R B Diamond House, Opposite Manohar Sarees, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon-425001 Pan : Aaifr9130Q Vs. Pne-C-1, Range-25, Circle-1, Cit, Jalgaon अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- "Ground No. 1: Ex-Parte Order Bad In Law 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ex Parte Order Passed By Cit(A)/ Nafc Is Bad In Law & Violates Principles Of Natural Justice. This Has Lead To A Denial Of Effective Opportunity For A Hearing. Ground No. 2: Violation Of Section 250(6) 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A)/ Nafc Failed To Comply With Section 250(6), Requiring Reasoned Findings On Each Ground Of Appeal. Ground No. 3: Non-Response Of Notices Due To Medical Issue 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hearing Notices Were Not Responded To Due To The Illness Of Ms. Rupal Bagrecha Who Is Taking Care Of Accounting, All Income Tax & Other Statutory Compliances. Her E-Mail Id Rupalbagrecha21@Gmail.Com Is Registered On The Income Tax Portal. She Was Suffering From Severe Symptoms Of Epilepsy & Undergoing Medical Investigation From February 2025 Onwards, Preventing Timely Communication Of Notices To The Tax Consultant, Constituting Reasonable & Sufficient Cause For Non-Response.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 250(6)Section 69A