Section 156

What a section 156 notice is

Demand Notice. A demand has been raised. Pay it or formally dispute it. It is a high-severity notice in the recovery family under the Income Tax Act 1961.

If you ignore it: Assessee in default. Interest u/s 220(2), then recovery proceedings.

Time to reply: commonly stated as 30 days from the date of the notice — but the date printed on your own notice governs, and it overrides any general figure. Interest u/s 220(2) starts running after the period expires. Stay of demand is a separate application.

Under the Income Tax Act 2025: section 289. But read that as reference, not as the provision to cite. Under s.536(2) of the 2025 Act, a proceeding for any tax year beginning before 1 April 2026 stays under the Income Tax Act 1961 from the notice through to the appeal — so a notice arriving today for an earlier year is a 1961 Act matter, whatever today's date is.

Section 156 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 156, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• UOI v Tata Chemicals Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I deducted tax under s.195 because the officer told me to, and the CIT(A) has now held it was not deductible. Do I get interest on the refund, or only the tax back?
  Yes, interest as well. The resident deductor is entitled not only to the refund of the tax deposited under s.195(2) but to have it refunded with interest from the date of payment of the tax. The Revenue was the appellant and its appeals were dismissed. The CBDT has since accepted the position by circular.
• Kalyan Kumar Ray v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  My assessment order does not compute the tax — the figures are only on the ITNS-150. Does that make the assessment bad?
  No, and the argument runs the other way from how it is often quoted. A three-Judge Bench rejected the submission that Form ITNS-150 is not part of the assessment order. The form is itself a form for determination of tax payable, and when signed or initialled by the officer it is an order in writing determining the tax within the meaning of s.143(3), to be treated as part of the assessment order in the wider sense. The assessee lost.
• CIT v Vegetable Products Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The provision can be read two ways. Which reading wins?
  Yours. Where two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted. Applied here to hold that penalty is computed on tax payable after credit for amounts already paid.
• Dwarka Nath v Income-Tax Officer Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Commissioner dismissed my revision and the officer will not issue a demand notice so I cannot appeal. Is the revisional order beyond the reach of a writ because it is administrative?
  No. The Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is prima facie judicial: the order brought before the Commissioner affects the assessee's rights, it is implicit in a revisional power that the parties be heard, and the nature of the jurisdiction carries with it a duty to act judicially. Certiorari therefore lies. And even if the revisional order were administrative, that would not help the Revenue, because the officer's failure to issue the statutory demand notice would still be a failure of a statutory duty, correctable by mandamus. The Court quashed the revisional order and directed the officer to pass an order and issue notice according to law.
• ITO, Kolar v Seghu Buchiah Setty Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  My assessment was reduced in appeal after the officer had already sent a recovery certificate to the Collector and my property was attached. Can he carry on with the old certificate?
  No, on the law as it then stood. By a majority the Supreme Court held that once the assessment order is revised in appeal, the notice of demand founded on it, the default and the recovery proceedings that followed are superseded. There cannot be two defaults in respect of one liability, so the officer must serve a fresh notice of demand for the amount now due, give the assessee an opportunity to pay, and only then treat him as in default. The Mysore High Court had rightly quashed the certificates and the attachment. Shah J dissented, holding that a modification which does not vacate the assessment leaves the earlier default intact.
• Arris Estates P Ltd v Assessment Unit High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Department admits it refused the video hearing but says limitation was about to expire. Is that a defence?
  No. The Gujarat High Court quashed an assessment where the request for a video conference hearing made on 4 March 2024 was not granted and the order followed on 15 March 2024, rejecting the plea that earlier adjournments had left the Department no time before the 31 March deadline.
• Pune Municipal Corporation v ACIT (TDS), Pune High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I have been held an assessee in default under s.201 for not deducting s.194C and s.194LA tax when I issued TDR certificates instead of paying money. Is there an answer where the payment is wholly in kind?
  The Bombay High Court found a strong prima facie case and stayed the s.201 order, the demand and the s.271C penalty notice. Its prima facie view is that the words 'or by any other mode' in s.194C and in s.194LA must be read ejusdem generis with payment in cash or by cheque or draft, so those sections do not operate where the payment is made in kind by issuing transferable development rights. The court drew support for that reading from s.194B and s.194R, which do contain express machinery for a benefit paid wholly in kind and which is conspicuously absent from s.194C and s.194LA.
• Sevensea Vincom P Ltd v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  They reopened AY 2016-17 in 2022 for under Rs 50 lakh. Is the notice time-barred?
  Yes. The Jharkhand High Court held the three-year period for AY 2016-17 ended on 31 March 2020, and because the Department itself alleged escapement of only Rs. 39,21,450 the extended ten-year window in s.149(1)(b) was unavailable. The whole proceeding was without jurisdiction.
• Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I asked for a personal hearing in the faceless assessment and was refused. Does the order survive?
  No. The Court read 'may' in s.144B(7)(viii) as 'must': once the assessee asks for a personal hearing it has to be given, because a power carrying civil consequences attracts the rules of natural justice unless the statute excludes them, and s.144B embeds rather than excludes them. The assessment order and demand notice were set aside for a fresh reasoned order after hearing.
• Mantra Industries Ltd v NFAC High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The faceless order says I filed no reply when I did, and my hearing request was ignored. Is it valid?
  It was set aside. The final order reproduced the draft order word for word apart from one sentence, recorded that no response had been filed when two replies were on the record, and ignored the requests for adjournment and personal hearing — so it was held non est under s.144B(9) as it then stood. The Court warned that costs would be recovered from the Assessing Officer personally and entered in the service record if it recurred.
• Gandhi Realty (India) P Ltd v Asst/Jt/Dy CIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The Department says it issued a draft assessment order, but nothing appeared on the portal. Who has to prove service?
  The Department does. Where the Revenue claimed a draft assessment order had been placed and served but nothing was traceable on the portal, the Gujarat High Court quashed the assessment. Every step of s.144B has to be treated with the same seriousness, because s.144B(9), as it then stood and before its retrospective omission, made a non-compliant assessment non est.
• Trendsutra Client Services P Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The faceless order made additions but no show cause notice or draft order ever came. What is the order worth?
  Nothing. Where the final order varies the returned income to the assessee's prejudice and no show cause notice or draft assessment order was served, the assessment is not made in accordance with s.144B and is non est. The Bombay High Court quashed it outright.
• CIT, Kolkata-I v Birla Corporation Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  Part of my refund is self-assessment tax I paid under s.140A. The officer says no interest is payable on that. Is he right?
  No. The Calcutta High Court held that s.244A(1)(b) is a residuary clause that covers a refund of excess self-assessment tax paid under s.140A, and that interest runs from the date the tax was paid to the date the refund is granted — a starting point since narrowed by s.244A(1)(aa) for periods from 1 June 2016. The Explanation to clause (b) does not stand in the way, because it operates only where the tax was paid pursuant to a notice of demand under s.156.
• Vijay Television P Ltd v DRP High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The AO skipped the draft order and passed a final one. Can a corrigendum cure that?
  No. The procedure in s.144C is mandatory and the draft order is the gateway to the eligible assessee's right to go to the DRP. Once a final order is passed, with a demand notice and penalty proceedings, the AO is functus officio and a corrigendum cannot convert it into a draft; the defect is an absence of power, not a curable mistake.
• Sony India Pvt Ltd v Additional CIT (Delhi) High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO rejected my stay application and issued a garnishee notice to my bank the same day. Is that permissible?
  The Delhi High Court held that issuing a notice under s.226(3) on the very day the stay application was rejected, and emptying the bank account two days later, carried an element of impropriety and arbitrariness, even though it could not be said to be illegal. The Court ordered the money reversed to the account and restrained coercive steps until the Tribunal decided the stay application.
• Girnar Investment Ltd v CIT High CourtHelps department
  The Commissioner (Appeals) wiped out my demand and the tax was refunded; then the Tribunal restored the assessment. Am I charged s.220(2) interest for the years in between?
  Yes, on this decision, and the reason matters. The Delhi High Court held that where an assessment is restored on appeal the original demand revives from inception, so interest under s.220(2) runs on the unpaid amount from the expiry of thirty days from the notice of demand, and an intervening appellate order in the assessee's favour — even one that wiped out the demand and produced a refund — makes no difference to the liability for interest. The boundary of the holding is that the assessee here had not paid the full demand: where the demand was satisfied in full and promptly, Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. First ITO [2001] 247 ITR 821 (SC) holds that no interest can be charged, and this judgment distinguishes that case rather than displacing it.
• Prakash v ITO High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I paid for the new house but it's in my son's name. Can I still claim 54F?
  No, on this view. The court held that ownership and domain over the new asset must run to the assessee from the sale of the original asset through to the purchase or construction; where the son became the owner, the assessee had no right over the property and section 54F was refused.
• KEC International Ltd v B.R. Balakrishnan High CourtHelps taxpayer
  What is the officer actually required to do when deciding your stay application?
  Four things: set out your case briefly, give short prima facie reasons if directing a part deposit, indicate whether you are financially sound, and check whether the time to appeal has expired. Coercive measures should generally not be used during the appeal period.
• Finesse International Design v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The section 153D approval for my search assessment carries no DIN, even though the assessment order itself does. Does that invalidate the assessment?
  Yes, on this Tribunal's view. The Delhi Bench held that CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 requires a computer-generated DIN in the body of every departmental communication issued from 1 October 2019, and that a communication issued without one is invalid and deemed never to have been issued. The approval under section 153D dated 19 February 2021 carried no DIN. Because that approval is the fulcrum on which the final order rests, the Tribunal treated it as non est in law, and quashed the section 153A assessment and the section 156 demand notice built on it. It did not go into the merits.
• CBDT Instruction 1914 and the Office Memorandum on stay of demand CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  What does the department's own instruction actually say about staying a demand?
  It sets out the guidelines the AO is to follow when an assessee asks for a stay pending first appeal, including the standard percentage to be deposited — which the courts have read as guidance, not a mandatory bar.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.