Speed Post is not equivalent to Registered Post for Section 148 notice service

Summary: In Mahesh Gautam Vs CIT (I.T.A. No. 436 of 2012, decided on 19 September 2025), the Allahabad High Court examined whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, through speed post constitutes valid service. The Assessing Officer had issued reopening notices for Assessment Years 2001–02 to 2003–04 via speed post, but they were returned unserved. A report from the Income Tax Inspector confirmed that the assessee was untraceable, yet no attempt was made to serve notice through affixture at the last known address. Despite this lapse, reassessment orders under Sections 147/144 were passed ex parte. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set aside the reassessment, holding that service was invalid. However, the ITAT reversed this decision, applying a presumption of due service under Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act. The High Court disagreed, holding that for deemed service under the Income-tax Act, notices must be sent by registered post. Speed post cannot substitute registered post unless there is actual proof that the assessee personally received the notice. Moreover, when personal service is not possible, affixture at the last known address is mandatory. The Court ruled that the absence of valid service rendered the entire reassessment void ab initio, quashing the ITAT’s order. The judgment highlights that jurisdictional defects in notice service cannot be cured subsequently. Tax practitioners are advised to review older reopening cases where notices were sent by speed post prior to the 2021 amendment permitting electronic communication.

Core Issue

Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, sent via speed post (and not “registered post”) constitutes valid service on the assessee, and whether proceedings under Section 147 can be sustained without affixture when the assessee is untraceable.

Factual Matrix

• The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148 for A.Ys. 2001–02 to 2003–04 via speed post.
• These were returned unserved, and the Income Tax Inspector’s report confirmed the assessee was not traceable.
• No effort was made to serve notice through affixture at the last known address.
• Despite this, reassessment orders under Sections 147/144 were passed ex parte.
• The CIT(A) set aside the reassessment, holding service invalid.
• The ITAT reversed CIT(A)’s order, invoking presumption under Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act that the notice was duly served since the envelope was missing from records.

Legal Principles Affirmed:

• Registered post mandatory for valid “deemed service” under the Income Tax Act.
• Speed post cannot substitute registered post unless actual proof of personal receipt by the assessee exists.
• Affixture at the last known address is compulsory where personal service is not possible.
• Jurisdictional defect in service vitiates reassessment proceedings ab initio.

Ruling

• The appeal was allowed, and the ITAT’s order dated 16.11.2011 was quashed.
• The Court held that no valid service of notice under Section 148 had occurred; therefore, reassessment under Section 147 was invalid and void.

Compliance Note:

Tax litigants handling old reopening cases should review whether notices issued via speed post before the 2021 amendment (now permitting electronic communication) suffer from jurisdictional defects, as such proceedings may be quashed following this precedent.