2025 (3) TMI 515 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment proceedings challenged for lack of mandatory notice under section 143(2) before invoking sections 147, 144, 144B

Rekh Chand Nahta Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur

ITAT Raipur remanded the case to CIT(Appeals) after finding that the appellate authority failed to adjudicate the assessee's challenge to the validity of ... Validity of reopening of assessment - lack of issuance of a mandatory notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT:- Although the assessee had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing the assessment without issuing any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act i.e. an issue which is squarely covered by the judgments in the cases of Hotel Blue Moon [2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwar [2019 (8) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] but find that the CIT(Appeals) had merely referred to the said contention of the assessee and not adjudicated the same as in CIT(Appeals)’s order. There is no whisper in the body of the CIT(Appeals) qua the adjudication on the aforesaid specific ground of appeal based on which the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the impugned assessment was assailed before him. We are unable to comprehend as to why the CIT(Appeals) had failed to adjudicate the aforesaid material aspect, based on which, the validity of the assessment was challenged before him. The aforesaid evasive approach on the part of the CIT(Appeals) needs to be deprecated. CIT(Appeals) had failed to dispose off the appeal after considering the specific contention that was raised by the assessee qua the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for framing the impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B i.e. framing of the assessment without taking cognizance of the return of income that was filed by the assessee and dispensing with the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the matter is restored to his file with a specific direction to adjudicate the appeal on the said specific issue. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid due to the lack of issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed the return of income in response to a notice under Section 148.Whether the Assessing Officer (A.O) properly assumed jurisdiction for the assessment without issuing the notice under Section 143(2).Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the specific ground regarding the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Validity of Assessment Order Due to Lack of Notice Under Section 143(2)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves the procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act, particularly the necessity of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) when a return of income is filed in response to a notice under Section 148. The precedents cited include the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon and CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwar, which underscore the mandatory nature of the notice under Section 143(2) for valid jurisdiction in assessment proceedings.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed filed a return of income in response to the notice under Section 148, yet the A.O did not issue the required notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal emphasized that the issuance of this notice is a jurisdictional requirement, and its absence renders the assessment order invalid.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed the return of income electronically on 03.02.2023 in compliance with the notice under Section 148. However, the A.O proceeded with the assessment without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2), which was a critical procedural lapse.Application of Law to Facts: Applying the legal requirement of Section 143(2) to the facts, the Tribunal concluded that the A.O's failure to issue the notice invalidated the jurisdiction assumed for the assessment. This procedural defect was not addressed by the CIT(Appeals), leading to the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the Departmental Representative's reliance on the orders of the lower authorities but found that the procedural lapse regarding the notice under Section 143(2) was a fundamental issue that needed rectification.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was invalid due to the lack of issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) and remanded the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on this specific issue.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal stated, 'I am unable to comprehend as to why the CIT(Appeals) had failed to adjudicate the aforesaid material aspect, based on which, the validity of the assessment was challenged before him. The aforesaid evasive approach on the part of the CIT(Appeals) needs to be deprecated.'Core Principles Established: The necessity of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) when a return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148 is reaffirmed as a jurisdictional requirement, without which the assessment order is rendered invalid.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(Appeals) with directions to adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction based on the lack of notice under Section 143(2), allowing the assessee to present additional evidence if necessary. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the procedural aspect was the primary focus for resolution.