ITAT Jaipur Quashes Reassessment: Mere Dispatch of Section 148 Notice Does Not Constitute Valid Service

The foundational bedrock of any reassessment proceeding under the Income Tax Act, 1961, rests upon the valid assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. A critical component of this jurisdictional authority is the proper issuance and actual service of the statutory notice. In a significant judicial pronouncement, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, in the case of Kamli Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur), has reinforced the principle that the mere dispatch of a notice does not equate to its valid service.

This comprehensive summary delves into the intricacies of the tribunal's order dated 08/10/2026, exploring the factual background, the procedural anomalies regarding the condonation of delay, the core jurisdictional dispute concerning Section 148, and the ultimate quashing of the reassessment order.

Executive Overview of the Dispute

The core controversy in the present appeal revolved around an ex parte assessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer had determined the income of the assessee at ₹49,54,920. The assessee challenged this assessment primarily on the ground that the foundational notice under Section 148 was never served upon her, rendering the entire reassessment proceeding void ab initio.

The ITAT Jaipur ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the Revenue department failed to discharge its burden of proving that the notice was actually delivered. The Tribunal categorically held that pointing to a postal dispatch entry is insufficient when the factum of service is explicitly disputed by the assessee.

Factual Matrix of the Case

The dispute traces back to the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings and ultimately passed an ex parte assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act.

The total assessed income was pegged at ₹49,54,920. This substantial figure comprised two primary additions:

• An addition of ₹49,22,580 made under Section 69 of the Act, representing alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee.
• An addition of ₹32,342 on account of interest accrued on time deposits.

Aggrieved by this ex parte assessment, the assessee escalated the matter by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee raised strong objections regarding both the merits of the additions and the legal validity of the assessment itself. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, prompting the assessee to approach the ITAT Jaipur.

Procedural Hurdle: Condonation of a 157-Day Delay

Before the Tribunal could adjudicate the matter on its merits or jurisdictional grounds, it had to address a significant procedural impediment: the appeal was filed with a delay of 157 days.