BASHIR AHMAD SOFI V ITO WARD 1
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Natural justice: ex parte assessment/appellate orders where service of notice and real opportunity of hearing are disputed.
Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Natural justice: ex parte assessment/appellate orders where service of notice and real opportunity of hearing are disputed.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Sh. Bashir Ahmad Sofi V. Income Tax Officer, Nowhatta, Srinagar Ward-1, Srinagar [PAN: AXTPS 5314F] Rajbagh, Srinagar (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Sh. Tasir Ul Islam, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR
Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order
2 I.T.A. Nos. 208 & 37/Asr/2022&23 Bashir Ahmad Sofi v. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal in
2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in para 5.3 of the Order U/S 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has erred to acknowledge the fact that Service of Notice is a jurisdictional requirement and has completely overlooked the judgment in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I Vs Chetan Gupta on 15 September, 2015, Delhi High Court As per Section 148, “ITO shall serve upon the Assessee a notice before assessment, reassessment or re-computation”
Appellant / assessee submissions
3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that ITA No. 37/Asr/2023 is
has been granted to the assessee. He contended that during the
He contended that all the notices mentioned in the assessment order had
5. The Counsel argued that the A.O in strangulation of principal of
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
Further, it is settled law that it is the duty of the revenue to establish that the service of an order or a notice was made on the assessee himself or on somebody duly authorized by him in that behalf and it is pertinent to mention that the appellant never received any of the mandatory notices as mentioned in the impugned assessment order hence the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O and sustained by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is void ab initio, vague and bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
Operative decision and relief
natural justice, therefore, this case may be set aside and restored back to
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Natural justice: ex parte assessment/appellate orders where service of notice and real opportunity of hearing are disputed. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with natural justice: ex parte assessment/appellate orders where service of notice and real opportunity of hearing are disputed. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | Later-history status: verification on hold pending source confirmation |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in BASHIR AHMAD SOFI V ITO WARD 1?
Natural justice: ex parte assessment/appellate orders where service of notice and real opportunity of hearing are disputed.
Which facts matter most?
Sh. Bashir Ahmad Sofi V. Income Tax Officer, Nowhatta, Srinagar Ward-1, Srinagar [PAN: AXTPS 5314F] Rajbagh, Srinagar (Appellant) (Respondent)
What did the ITAT Amritsar decide?
natural justice, therefore, this case may be set aside and restored back to
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Natural justice: ex parte assessment/appellate orders where service of notice and real opportunity of hearing are disputed. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
The exact provisions identified in the packaged judgment and their version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Natural justice: ex parte assessment/appellate orders where service of notice and real opportunity of hearing are disputed - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Agreeko Energy Rental Vs DCIT - ITAT Pune
- Chennai Port Authority v. NFAC - Madras High Court
Different outcome / possible distinction
- No source-reviewed contrasting case is linked yet.
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending · Repository status: Later-history status: verification on hold pending source confirmation
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Sections and statute
The numbered references below belong to the statutes and versions identified in this judgment. They are citation labels, not a crosswalk to same-number sections of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Section 148