The reopening notice was posted to the address in my PAN and came back undelivered. The department says it did all it had to. Was the notice served?
No. Rule 127(2) does not stop at the PAN address: where the communication cannot be delivered there, the further proviso requires it to be sent to the address available with the banking company or co-operative bank. The department had the assessee's bank account and had built its case out of the transactions in it, but never sent the notice to the address held by the bank, so service was incomplete and, the s.149 period having run out, the reassessment could not proceed.
Decided by the High Court (Akil Kureshi J and S. J. Kathawalla J) on 2019-07-16, reported as Writ Petition No. 513 of 2019 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay). It bears on section 282, section 147, section 148, section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening, Assessment & Scrutiny and Demand, Recovery & Stay matters.
This is the answer to the department's most common service defence — that the notice went to the PAN address, so any failure is the assessee's own fault for not updating it. Rule 127(2) makes the PAN address the first port of call, not the last: the further proviso lists further addresses to be used when delivery at the listed ones fails, beginning with the address available with the assessee's bank. The reach of the point is wider than reopening, because the case turns on the general position that service, and not mere issue, of the s.148 notice within the s.149 period is a condition precedent to jurisdiction, so an undelivered notice cannot be cured after the period expires. Note what the case does not decide: the assessee here had never informed the department of a change of address, and the court did not need that fact — the department's duty under the further proviso arose from the failure of delivery itself. Note also that s.292BB has no work to do on facts like these, because the assessee never appeared in the proceeding at all.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner was a widowed lady holding a PAN who, having no taxable income, had never filed returns, and who after her husband's death resided mostly with her sisters at Jabalpur. A notice under s.148 for AY 2011-12 dated 15 March 2018 was despatched by post to the address in her PAN and was returned by the postal authority on 23 March 2018 marked 'left'. She had not informed the department of any change of address. During the assessment the officer attempted service at an address appearing in the bank account details available with the department. A reassessment order was passed on 28 December 2018 and a recovery notice issued on 1 February 2019. In the relevant period the petitioner had made high-value transactions including cash deposits, mutual fund purchases and property sales, which the department had gathered from her bank account. She learned of the proceedings only on being told by telephone and travelled from Jabalpur to Mumbai to gather information. The outer date for issue of a notice under s.149 was 31 March 2018.
The petition was allowed. Service of the s.148 notice on the assessee within the period under s.149, and not mere issue of it, is necessary for a valid reopening. Where delivery at the address listed in rule 127(2) fails, the further proviso to rule 127(2) requires the communication to be delivered to the address of the assessee available with her banking company; the department, which had access to the bank account and had drawn its material from it, did not do so, so service was incomplete and the officer could not proceed with the reassessment. The notice dated 15 March 2018, the consequential reassessment order, and all subsequent coercive recovery steps were set aside, and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts stood nullified.
The court began from s.148(1), which requires the Assessing Officer to serve on the assessee a notice before making a reassessment under s.147, and from s.149, under which such a notice could issue at the latest by 31 March 2018. It held it to be the consistent view of the courts that not mere issuance but service of the notice, within the time frame envisaged by s.149, is necessary for a valid reopening, citing Y. Narayana Chetty (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC) that service of the requisite notice is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment and that proceedings taken without notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice are illegal and void; Shanabhai B. Patel (1974) 96 ITR 141 (Guj) that jurisdiction cannot be assumed without issue of notice within the prescribed period and service on the assessee; and Major Tikka Khushwant Singh (1975) 101 ITR 106 (P&H). It then set out s.282(1), under which service may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy by post or approved courier, or in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for service of summons, and rule 127, under which the addresses for delivery are those in sub-rule (2) — the address in the PAN database, the address in the income-tax return relating to communication, the address in the last return furnished, and for a company its registered office — subject to a first proviso where the assessee has furnished another address, and a further proviso under which, where the communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to any of those addresses, it shall be delivered or transmitted to the address of the assessee available with a banking company or co-operative bank to which the Banking Regulation Act 1949 applies. Delivery at the PAN address having failed, the further proviso obliged the department to deliver the notice at the address the petitioner had given to her bank. The department had access to that account and had gathered its material from the activity in it, but took no such step. Service of the notice was therefore incomplete, and absent service before the s.149 deadline the officer could not proceed with the reassessment.
It is consistent view of the Courts that not mere issuance of notice of reopening of assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the time frame envisaged under section 149 of the Act is necessary for a valid reopening of assessment.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Rule 127(2) does not stop at the PAN address: where the communication cannot be delivered there, the further proviso requires it to be sent to the address available with the banking company or co-operative bank. The department had the assessee's bank account and had built its case out of the transactions in it, but never sent the notice to the address held by the bank, so service was incomplete and, the s.149 period having run out, the reassessment could not proceed. This was decided by the High Court (Akil Kureshi J and S. J. Kathawalla J) and bears on section 282, section 147, section 148, section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Writ Petition No. 513 of 2019 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay). This is the answer to the department's most common service defence — that the notice went to the PAN address, so any failure is the assessee's own fault for not updating it. Rule 127(2) makes the PAN address the first port of call, not the last: the further proviso lists further addresses to be used when delivery at the listed ones fails, beginning with the address available with the assessee's bank. The reach of the point is wider than reopening, because the case turns on the general position that service, and not mere issue, of the s.148 notice within the s.149 period is a condition precedent to jurisdiction, so an undelivered notice cannot be cured after the period expires. Note what the case does not decide: the assessee here had never informed the department of a change of address, and the court did not need that fact — the department's duty under the further proviso arose from the failure of delivery itself. Note also that s.292BB has no work to do on facts like these, because the assessee never appeared in the proceeding at all. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Get the postal track record and the returned envelope endorsement from the assessment record — here the endorsement was 'left' and it was the failure of that delivery that triggered the department's further obligation.
The petitioner was a widowed lady holding a PAN who, having no taxable income, had never filed returns, and who after her husband's death resided mostly with her sisters at Jabalpur. A notice under s.148 for AY 2011-12 dated 15 March 2018 was despatched by post to the address in her PAN and was returned by the postal authority on 23 March 2018 marked 'left'. She had not informed the department of any change of address. During the assessment the officer attempted service at an address appearing in the bank account details available with the department. A reassessment order was passed on 28 December 2018 and a recovery notice issued on 1 February 2019. In the relevant period the petitioner had made high-value transactions including cash deposits, mutual fund purchases and property sales, which the department had gathered from her bank account. She learned of the proceedings only on being told by telephone and travelled from Jabalpur to Mumbai to gather information. The outer date for issue of a notice under s.149 was 31 March 2018. The matter was decided on 2019-07-16 by the High Court (Akil Kureshi J and S. J. Kathawalla J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The petition was allowed. Service of the s.148 notice on the assessee within the period under s.149, and not mere issue of it, is necessary for a valid reopening. Where delivery at the address listed in rule 127(2) fails, the further proviso to rule 127(2) requires the communication to be delivered to the address of the assessee available with her banking company; the department, which had access to the bank account and had drawn its material from it, did not do so, so service was incomplete and the officer could not proceed with the reassessment. The notice dated 15 March 2018, the consequential reassessment order, and all subsequent coercive recovery steps were set aside, and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts stood nullified.
The court began from s.148(1), which requires the Assessing Officer to serve on the assessee a notice before making a reassessment under s.147, and from s.149, under which such a notice could issue at the latest by 31 March 2018. It held it to be the consistent view of the courts that not mere issuance but service of the notice, within the time frame envisaged by s.149, is necessary for a valid reopening, citing Y. Narayana Chetty (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC) that service of the requisite notice is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment and that proceedings taken without notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice are illegal and void; Shanabhai B. Patel (1974) 96 ITR 141 (Guj) that jurisdiction cannot be assumed without issue of notice within the prescribed period and service on the assessee; and Major Tikka Khushwant Singh (1975) 101 ITR 106 (P&H). It then set out s.282(1), under which service may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy by post or approved courier, or in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for service of summons, and rule 127, under which the addresses for delivery are those in sub-rule (2) — the address in the PAN database, the address in the income-tax return relating to communication, the address in the last return furnished, and for a company its registered office — subject to a first proviso where the assessee has furnished another address, and a further proviso under which, where the communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to any of those addresses, it shall be delivered or transmitted to the address of the assessee available with a banking company or co-operative bank to which the Banking Regulation Act 1949 applies. Delivery at the PAN address having failed, the further proviso obliged the department to deliver the notice at the address the petitioner had given to her bank. The department had access to that account and had gathered its material from the activity in it, but took no such step. Service of the notice was therefore incomplete, and absent service before the s.149 deadline the officer could not proceed with the reassessment. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "It is consistent view of the Courts that not mere issuance of notice of reopening of assessment but its service on the assessee, that too, within the time frame envisaged under section 149 of the Act is necessary for a valid reopening of assessment." The decision followed or applied Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC) — applied; Shanabhai B. Patel (1974) 96 ITR 141 (Guj) — applied; Major Tikka Khushwant Singh (1975) 101 ITR 106 (P&H) — applied.
It was decided by the High Court on 2019-07-16 and is reported as Writ Petition No. 513 of 2019 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 282, section 147, section 148, section 149, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The petition was allowed. Service of the s.148 notice on the assessee within the period under s.149, and not mere issue of it, is necessary for a valid reopening. Where delivery at the address listed in rule 127(2) fails, the further proviso to rule 127(2) requires the communication to be delivered to the address of the assessee available with her banking company; the department, which had access to the bank account and had drawn its material from it, did not do so, so service was incomplete and the officer could not proceed with the reassessment. The notice dated 15 March 2018, the consequential reassessment order, and all subsequent coercive recovery steps were set aside, and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts stood nullified. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening, Assessment & Scrutiny and Demand, Recovery & Stay matters, on section 282, section 147, section 148, section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Akil Kureshi J and S. J. Kathawalla J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Set out, in date order, the s.149 outer date, the date of despatch, the date of return undelivered, and every subsequent attempt at service; the whole point is that the further attempts came too late or went to the wrong place. Identify every address the department in fact held: the PAN database, the address in the return relating to communication, the address in the last return furnished, the registered office for a company, and — critically — the address held by the bank whose statements the department is relying on. Where the department has used bank transactions as the material for reopening, say in terms that it had access to the bank account and could have obtained the address from the bank, which is what the court held it had to do. Do not let the department convert the point into s.292BB where the assessee never appeared: s.292BB operates only where the assessee appeared in the proceeding or co-operated in any inquiry and did not object before completion. The remedy taken here was a writ petition setting aside the notice, the reassessment order and the recovery steps, including the attachment of bank accounts.
Still good law. Twelve citator hits and the judgment has been adopted by another High Court. In Raju Ram v Union of India (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, 2 April 2026) the Bench reproduced paragraphs 8 and 9 of Girotra and said in terms that it is 'Bombay High Court judgment, with which we are in agreement with', then quashed the assessment for want of valid service of the section 148 notice within the section 149 period. Tribunals have applied it widely on the same point - Smt Puspanjali Mishra v ITO (Cuttack, 17 December 2020), Puran Chand Bairwa v ITO (Jaipur, 7 November 2019), Madhav Infra Projects Ltd v DCIT (Ahmedabad, 28 June 2024), Benco Finance and Investment P Ltd v DCIT (Mumbai, 10 August 2021) and Harsh Vardhan v ACIT (Amritsar, 21 February 2022) - all for the proposition that issue of the notice is not service, and that service must be effected within the limitation period. Nothing overruling or doubting it was found. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Only paragraph 9 was obtained in exact consecutive words and independently confirmed; the second retrieval of paragraphs 17 and 18 came back in a rendered rather than verbatim form, so the reasoning for those paragraphs is stated here in summary and nothing from them is quoted. The date of the reassessment order is given as 28 December 2018 and the recovery notice as 1 February 2019. Rule 127 is a rule of the Income-tax Rules and so does not appear in the sections array. No ITR citation was located; the case is identified by its writ petition number. The judgment as read does not itself discuss s.292BB — the observation about s.292BB in this entry is drawn from the fact that the assessee never appeared, not from any passage in the judgment. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The petition was allowed. Service of the s.148 notice on the assessee within the period under s.149, and not mere issue of it, is necessary for a valid reopening. Where delivery at the address listed in rule 127(2) fails, the further proviso to rule 127(2) requires the communication to be delivered to the address of the assessee available with her banking company; the department, which had access to the bank account and had drawn its material from it, did not do so, so service was incomplete and the officer could not proceed with the reassessment. The notice dated 15 March 2018, the consequential reassessment order, and all subsequent coercive recovery steps were set aside, and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts stood nullified.
TaxSphere, “Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra v Union of India”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/girotra-rule-127-notice-must-follow-to-the-bank-address/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The s.148 notice was digitally signed on 31 March but the e-mail only went on 6 April. Was it issued in time?
The department only uploaded the show cause notice on the e-filing portal and never emailed it to me, then passed an order when I did not reply. Is that valid service?
My belated return showed a refund due, so no tax was payable on regular assessment and the proviso to s.276CC protects me. Can I be discharged on that ground before trial?
How strong does the officer's material have to be before he can reopen?
