Validity of delayed return filed in response to notice and issuance of notice before framing assessment; assessment void if absent.

Delayed filing of a return submitted in response to a notice under notice provisions remains a valid "return of income"; consequently the assessing officer is obliged to issue a further procedural notice before framing assessment, and failure to issue such notice renders the assessment void. Reopening or reassessment initiated without issuance of the requisite procedural notice is unsustainable. Deeming provisions that cure defects in service do not cure the complete absence of a notice, and participation by the taxpayer in proceedings does not validate an assessment made without the mandatory notice requirement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the return of income filed by the assessee on 31.03.2019 in response to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (though filed after the period specified in the notice) is a valid return; (ii) Whether the Assessing Officer could, on the premise that the return was invalid, dispense with issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and consequently frame assessment under Section 144 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the belated return filed on 31.03.2019 in response to notice u/s 142(1) is a valid return.

Analysis: The return was filed during the pendency of assessment proceedings. Section 234A contemplates levy of interest for delayed filing but does not render a return filed in response to a statutory notice as invalid. Tribunal and High Court authorities permit acceptance and action on returns filed beyond prescribed periods where proceedings are pending; analogous precedents support that delay affects levy of interest but not the status of the return as a return filed in response to the notice.

Conclusion: The belated return filed on 31.03.2019 is a valid return; this conclusion is in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the AO could dispense with issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and frame assessment u/s 144 on the basis that the return was invalid.

Analysis: Where a return is filed in response to a notice, the AO is under a statutory obligation to issue notice u/s 143(2) for framing assessment; failure to issue such notice constitutes a jurisdictional defect. Deeming provisions of Section 292BB cure defects in manner of service but do not cure absence of issuance of a statutory notice required for framing assessment. Judicial precedents establish that non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) renders assessment void.

Conclusion: The AO erred in dispensing with issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and in framing the assessment u/s 144; this conclusion is in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment order suffers from a jurisdictional defect because the Assessing Officer wrongly treated the return as invalid and failed to issue notice u/s 143(2); consequently the assessment is quashed and the appeal is allowed to the extent of invalidating the assessment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A return filed in response to a notice under Section 142(1), though filed beyond the period specified in the notice, remains a valid return when filed during the pendency of assessment proceedings, and the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice under Section 143(2); non-issuance of that notice renders the assessment a jurisdictionally void proceeding.

---