Kamli Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Dispatch Is Not Service: Reassessment Quashed for Failure to Establish Service of Section 148 Notice
The Legal Principle
The Jaipur Tribunal quashed a reassessment because the Revenue failed to establish that the notice under section 148 had been validly served upon the assessee. The Department relied on the fact that the notice had been issued through speed post to the address available in the PAN records. The Tribunal held that issuance and service are two separate matters.
Once service was specifically disputed, merely referring to dispatch did not sufficiently answer the objection. In the absence of evidence establishing valid service, the reassessment was held to be without authority of law.
The Tribunal also condoned a 157-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances of an illiterate widow who depended on professional assistance to handle electronic tax proceedings.
Delay Caused by an Unnoticed Appellate Order
The assessee explained that she had appointed a Chartered Accountant to represent her before the CIT(A). Her e-filing profile contained her son-in-law’s email address, but the appellate notices and order were sent to another email address which, according to her, neither belonged to her nor was known to her.
The authorised representative had monitored the portal and participated in the appellate proceedings, including filing a reply on 27 January 2025. Thereafter, the portal was not checked, and the CIT(A)’s order dated 3 June 2025 remained unnoticed.
The order came to the representative’s attention only on 29 December 2025, following which the assessee was advised to appeal before the Tribunal.
The Revenue opposed condonation, arguing that the explanation reflected laxity in pursuing the remedy.
Substantial Justice Prevailed Over the Procedural Delay
Following Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal observed that “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice.
Considering the assessee’s illiteracy, dependence on a professional and the communication-related circumstances, the Tribunal found that the delay was bona fide, reasonable and neither intentional nor deliberate.
It accordingly condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The ruling rests on the combined circumstances; it does not suggest that failure to monitor the portal invariably warrants condonation.
Reassessment of Bank Deposits
The Assessing Officer had completed an ex parte assessment under section 147 read with section 144, assessing income at ₹49,54,920. The assessment included ₹49,22,580 as unexplained bank deposits under section 69 and ₹32,342 as interest on time deposits.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged both the validity of the reassessment and the additions. Her principal jurisdictional objection was that the section 148 notice had never been served upon her.
She also disputed the surviving cash deposit addition, referring to agricultural land sale proceeds, withdrawals redeposited into the bank account and amounts representing family pension, refund and interest.
However, the Tribunal ultimately decided the appeal on the jurisdictional ground without examining these explanations on merits.
Incorrect Particulars and Absence of Service Evidence
The assessee pointed out that the notice contained an incorrect husband’s name and an incorrect or incomplete address.
Her husband was Late Hansraj Meena, whereas the notice mentioned Ashok Kumar. The address recorded in the notice also differed from the address furnished by her.
The CIT(A) rejected the objection by stating that the notice had been sent on 29 March 2018 through registered speed post to the available PAN address.
Before the Tribunal, the Revenue again relied on this finding. It did not produce evidence demonstrating that the notice had actually been validly served.
A Postal Reference Did Not Establish Delivery
The Tribunal noted that the legal requirement of service of section 148 notice for proceeding with reassessment was not disputed. The authorities cited by the assessee had neither been distinguished nor controverted by the Revenue.
These included Mrs. Shubhashri Panicker v. CIT, (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.), Charan Singh v. ITO(E) and Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra v. Union of India, (2019) 180 DTR 257 (Bom.).
The decisive deficiency was evidentiary. Nothing was placed before the Tribunal to demonstrate valid service, beyond the assertion that the notice had been dispatched to the PAN address.
The Tribunal therefore held the reassessment void and directed that it be quashed. All remaining grounds became academic, and the appeal was allowed.
Author’s Comments
A dispatch entry proves that a notice was sent; it does not, by itself, resolve a specific dispute about valid service. The practical value of this decision lies in the Revenue’s failure to produce evidence answering that dispute.
The ruling should not be stretched to mean that personal physical delivery is essential in every case. The relevant question is whether service recognised by law has been established on the particular facts. Here, the incorrect particulars and absence of supporting service evidence remained unanswered.
The case also demonstrates why a jurisdictional objection should be raised clearly and supported by the notice, address records and surrounding facts. Where the foundational service requirement is not established, explanations regarding the assessed deposits may become unnecessary for deciding the appeal.
Equally, the condonation ruling recognises the difficulties faced by an illiterate taxpayer navigating electronic proceedings through others. Procedural diligence matters, but a bona fide explanation must be assessed in its full human and factual context.
Cases Discussed
- Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs Union of India and Others (Bombay High Court) — (2019) 180 DTR 257. Relied upon regarding the requirement of legally valid service of a reassessment notice and the consequences of service at an incorrect address.
- Charan Singh Vs ITO(E) (ITAT Jaipur) — ITA No. 906/JPR/2018; Order dated 22/01/2019. Relied upon for the mandatory nature of issuance and service of a jurisdictional notice under section 148.
- Mrs. Shubhashri Panicker Vs CIT (Rajasthan High Court) — (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.). Relied upon concerning the legal requirement of service of reassessment notice. No exact TaxGuru case page is linked without verification.
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji & Ors. (Supreme Court) — (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Relied upon for liberal construction of sufficient cause while deciding condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 03.06.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. The appeal is noted to be delayed for filing by 157 days. An application by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay has been filed before me, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:-
1. I am a widow and illiterate.
2. The AO vide order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dt. 20.12.2018 for AY 2011-12 assessed my income at Rs.49,54,920/- by making addition of Rs.49,22,580/- u/s 69 of IT Act on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account and Rs.32,342/- on account of interest on time deposit. This order was received by me on 17.06.2019.
3. For filing of appeal and arguing the case before CIT(A), I had appointed CA Abhinav Gupta of Alwar. Against this order, appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) on 27.06.2019.
4. In my e-filing portal, e-mail id mentioned is [email protected] which is of my son-in-law. However, Ld. CIT(A) has issued all the notices and orders at e-mail id [email protected] which does not belong to me and I am not aware whose e-mail id it is. Thus the hearing notices and orders were never received by me through e-mail.
5. My counsel CA Abhinav Gupta checks my e-filing portal time to time and thus has filed reply to all the hearing notices. Against the last hearing notice dt. 08.08.2024, reply was filed on 27.01.2025. After this date he did not checked my e-filing portal and thus the order dt. 03.06.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A) did not came to his notice.
6. On 29.12.2025 when he browsed my e-filing portal then it came to his notice that my appeal has been dismissed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide order dt. 03.06.2025.
7. He advised me to file appeal against this order before ITAT for which he suggested the name of CA P.C. Parwal of Kalani & Co, LLP, Jaipur. For these reasons there is delay in filing the appeal and as advised, I am now filing the appeal before Hon’ble ITAT along with the request to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Thus the delay in filing the appeal before Hon’ble ITAT is due to a reasonable cause and therefore, the same be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing for imparting substantial justice. The contents of this letter have been explained to me in Hindi.
3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated before me that the appeal was delayed for no fault of the assessee who had engaged a professional to attend the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and who did diligently participate in the same, but the order passed skipped his notice and only when the assessee checked her portal that she became aware of the passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A).
4. It was stated before me that the assessee is a widow and an illiterate lady and is not conversant with income-tax proceedings and the e-filing system. She had engaged CA Abhinav Gupta, Alwar, to represent her before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been submitted that although the e-mail ID available on the assessee’s e-filing portal was [email protected], belonging to her son-in-law, the notices and order of the Ld. CIT(A) were issued at [email protected], which did not belong to the assessee and was not known to her. The authorised representative had been monitoring the e-filing portal and had also filed a reply on 27.01.2025 in response to the hearing notice dated 08.08.2024. Thereafter, the portal was not checked and, consequently, the appellate order dated 03.06.2025 remained unnoticed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), came to the notice of the authorised representative only on 29.12.2025, when he checked the e-filing portal. Thereafter, the assessee was advised to file an appeal before the Tribunal and the present appeal was filed with a delay of 157 days.
5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on his part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned.
6. I have heard both the parties.
7. The law governing condonation of delay is now well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) laid down that the expression “sufficient cause” occurring in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Court further observed that there is no presumption that delay is deliberate or occasioned on account of culpable negligence or mala fides and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly.
8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the delay in filing the present appeal of 157 days was on account of bona fide and reasonable circumstances and was neither intentional nor deliberate. I am therefore, satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. I accordingly condone the delay of 157 days in the filing of the present appeal before me. Order was pronounced in the Open Court.
9. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.49,54,920/- in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act making addition of cash deposited in her bank account allegedly remaining unexplained amounting to Rs.49,22,580/- and interest of time deposits amounting to Rs.32,342/- by way of an ex parte order passed. The assessee appealed against the said order to the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO.
10. The assessee participated in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order passed on the ground, that it was passed without valid jurisdiction since the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the AO was never served upon the assessee. On merits the additionmade was also challenged by the assessee. However both the grounds were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A).
11. Before me, the assessee has reiterated the grounds raised before the Ld. CIT(A) as under:-
1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, assessment order passed u/s 147 of IT Act, 1961 without service of notice issued u/s 148 is illegal & bad in law and be quashed.
2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.18,76,175/- u/s 69 of IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account by not appreciating that cash deposit in the bank account is Rs.48,59,960/- out of which after accepting the cash deposit of Rs.30,46,400/-, the remaining cash deposit is Rs. 18,13,560/-only, source of which is cash of Rs.6,01,350/- received on sale of agricultural land and source of balance cash deposit of Rs. 12,12,210/- is cash withdrawal from the bank account.
3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has further erred on facts and in law in not considering that addition confirmed to the extent of Rs.62,615/- (18,76,175-18,13,560) represent family pension receipt of Rs.32,139/-, income tax refund of Rs.654/- and interest receipt of Rs.29,822/- against which AO has separately made addition on account of interest of Rs.32,342/- resulting into double addition to that extent and has not considered deduction u/s 57(iia) of Rs. 10,713/-.
4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.
5 Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.
12. Vis-à-vis the first legal ground raised, challenging the assessment framed in the present case without jurisdiction on account of the notice u/s 148 not being served upon the assessee, it was pointed out that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act contained wrong details of the name of husband of the assessee and also the address. It was pointed out that while the assessee’s husband’s name was Late Sh. Hansraj Meena, the notice mentioned the husband name to be Sh. Ashok Kumar and the address mentioned in the notice was incomplete mentioning Gram Roopbas, Tehsil Alwar, Distt Alwar, instead of Bharat Nagar, Near Petrol Pump Village Bhugor Tehsil Alwar. These fact were brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A) and are reproduced at page 8 of his order as under:-
…….
1. Notice u/s 148 issued to assessee is void-ab-initio as it was not served to the assessee, Assessee is uneducated and Widow of Raj. Govt Employee Mr Hansraj Meena As per Asst order, AO issued Notice u/s 148/147 on dated 29.03.2018 but this notice was not served to assessee as the husband name and address mentioned on notices was wrong and incomplete., Assessee husband name mentioned Ashok Kumar instead of Late Sh Hansraj meena and Add. on Notice was of Gram Roopbas, Tehsil Alwar Distt Alwar instead of Bharat Nagar,, near Petrol at Pump, Village Bhugor Tehsil Alwar.
……
13. The said facts were reiterated before me also. Besides ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that when these facts were brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the assessee’s contention without bringing on record the fact of service of notice and merely pointing out that the notice was issued on the available address to the assessee. He drew our attention to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard at para 9 of his order as under:-
…….
Grounds 01 & 02: In this ground of appeal, the appellant has contented that the notice u/s 148 issued is void-ab-initio as it was not served to the appellant. The contention of the appellant has been considered. I have gone through the facts and found that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was rightly issued to the appellant on the available address found as per PAN details and the same was sent through registered speed post no. ER36187193IN on 29.03.2018.
……
14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that it is settled law that in the absence of service of notice, the AO could not have proceeded with the re-assessment proceedings and in this regard he drew our attention to the order passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Shubhashri Panicker Vs. CIT [2018] 166 DTR 1 (Raj.), the order passed by the ITAT Jaipur Benches in the case of Charan Singh Vs. ITO(E) in ITA No.906/JPR/2018 order dated 22.01.2019 and the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs. Union of India and Others [2019] 180 DTR 257.
15. Ld. DR however relied on the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) mentioning that the notices were issued to the assessee found as per PAN details and same was sent through speed post.
16. I have heard the rival contentions. The assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment in the present case on account of notice u/s 148 of the Act not being served to the assessee. The law in this regard that service of notice u/s 148 of the Act is mandatory for valid assumption of jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act, is not disputed. The case laws referred to by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before me as above, have not been controverted nor distinguished by the Ld. DR, nor is the case of the Revenue of the law being otherwise.
17. Having stated so, I find that the assessee’s contention of not having been served notice u/s 148 of the Act has not been suitably controverted by the Revenue. Nothing has been placed before me to demonstrate a valid service of notice to the assessee. The only basis with the Ld. CIT(A) for rejecting assessee’s contention is that notice was issued to the assessee at its PAN address. But issuance and service of notice are two separate things. Department has to demonstrate that the notice was validly served. Except for stating that it was issued through registered post at the PAN address of the assessee, no evidence has been filed before me demonstrating that it was duly served to the assessee, that it was not received back unserved. In the absence of the fact of service of notice to the assessee being established, I am left with no choice but to hold that the assessment framed in the present case was without authority of law .The order passed as a consequence u/s 147 of the Act is held to be void and is directed to be quashed.
18. Since, I have quashed the assessment order passed, the other grounds raised by the assessee are not being dealt with by me being mere academic in nature.
19. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.10.2026.
