Valid return under reassessment proceedings requires mandatory notice; absence of section 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional defect.

A return filed in response to a section 148 notice remains a valid return even if filed after the time stated in the notice; the delay does not render it non est, though it may attract interest consequences. Once that return is taken cognizance of and the assessment is framed on that basis, issuance of notice under section 143(2) becomes mandatory. The complete absence of that notice is a jurisdictional defect, and section 292BB does not cure such non-issuance. On that ground, the reassessment was held invalid and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the assessee had filed a return in response to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond the time mentioned in that notice and no notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued.

Analysis: The return filed in response to the notice under section 148, though delayed, was held to be a valid return and not non est. The delay by itself did not invalidate the return; at most, it attracted consequences such as interest under section 234A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Once the return was taken cognizance of and the assessment was framed by making additions, the Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The absence of such notice was held to be a jurisdictional defect. Section 292BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held not to cure the complete absence of notice.

Conclusion: The assessment was invalid for want of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was quashed, resulting in the appeal being allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A return filed in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 remains valid despite delay, and once such return is acted upon, issuance of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory; the complete absence of that notice is a jurisdictional defect not cured by section 292BB.

---