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

Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu, Sanga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sanga Reddy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 705/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.705/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Mallikarjuna Rao Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Sanga Reddy. Brahmarauthu, Sanga Reddy. Pan:Avppb2671L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 30.11.2023 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, SR-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Sudhakar Akutota, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1068/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1068/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Sudhakar Akutota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Abapa0044M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sudhakar Akutota (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 296 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorised

For Appellant: Shri A. V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Akhilesh Singh Bhadauria, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Akhilesh Singh Bhadauria, Vs Ito, A-19, Ground Floor, Ward-58(2), Ghazipur Village, Delhi. Delhi – 110 096 Pan: Altpb9329H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 69A

Raghav Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 677/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.677/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Raghav Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata 4Th Floor, Room No.4D, 23/1, M.D.Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aadcr 6456 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.08.2023, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Filed Belatedly By 518 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein That The Ld.Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 09.08.2023 Has Passed An Order Ex-Parte, Since The Defects Mentioned In The Notice In Respect Of Appeal Memo Submitted In Form 35 Was Not Removed/Rectified, Thereby Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Accordingly, There Had Been An Inordinate Delay In Submission Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal, Which Occurred Due To The Fact That The E-Portal Of The Income Tax Site Was Never Accessed By The Assessee. It Is Only Upon Going Through The Portal For Compilation Of The Status Of The Return Of Income

For Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Abhishek Builders and Developers, Pune vs. ACIT Circle Panvel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2726/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol khairnar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

H. Srinivas Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 629/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundar P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

H. Srinivas Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundar P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

H. Srinivas Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 626/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundar P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

H Srinivas Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 623/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundar P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

Aditi Mitra, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 25/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 183Section 282Section 68

Krishna Kumar Kedia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 888/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Shri. Balaji Vividodeeshagala Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 827/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

Darshan Singh, Moga vs. ITO Ward I Moga, Moga

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 86/ASR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 250Section 282

Anil Kumar Mittal H.No. 143, Dlf Valley Panchkula, Panchkula vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1135/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has since confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under Section 148 dated 30/03/2019 has not been served on the assessee on his address and some other address has been mentioned in the notice which doesn't belong to the assessee. It was submitted that on inspection of the assessment records, it has been noted that the notice has been re

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 282Section 69A

Atar Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 70 (1)-Delhi, Delhi

ITA 186/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 282Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Tollygunge Estates (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 941/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 282

Ranjeet Kumar (Individual), Begusarai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (1), Begusarai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 282Section 69

Sunlit Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 828/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 282

Varitra Foundation, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Ambala

ITA 454/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: The Cit(A) On 14.12.2024 Against The Intimation Dated 27.11.2023 Issued Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Unaware Of The Said Intimation As The Registered Email Address Was Inaccessible & The Order Was Not Served Through Any Valid Mode Prescribed Under Law. The Assessee Contended That It Became Aware Of The Order Only Upon Receipt Of A Telephonic Communication From The Department

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 249(3)Section 282Section 5

Sri Thakur Ji Maharaj Mahavidyalaya Samiti, Hardoi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (Exemption), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 259/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 69A