Section 143(2) notice is mandatory in reassessment; omission vitiates jurisdiction even where the section 148 return was delayed.

A return filed in response to notice under section 148 is treated as a return for reassessment purposes under the Act, and delay in filing it does not by itself make it non est while the proceedings remain pending. Once such a return is furnished, notice under section 143(2) is mandatory before completing reassessment; it is not a mere formality. Omission of that notice deprives the reassessment of valid jurisdiction, and the reassessment is unsustainable where section 143(2) was not issued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond the stipulated time remains a valid return for reassessment proceedings; (ii) whether notice under section 143(2) is mandatory before framing reassessment after such return is filed; (iii) whether the reassessment framed without issuing notice under section 143(2) can be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether a return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond the stipulated time remains a valid return for reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: A return filed pursuant to notice under section 148 is to be treated as a return required to be furnished under section 139 for the purposes of further assessment proceedings. Delay in filing such return does not, by itself, render it non est when the reassessment proceedings are still pending in the statutory hierarchy.

Conclusion: Yes. The delayed return filed in response to notice under section 148 remained a valid return for the reassessment proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether notice under section 143(2) is mandatory before framing reassessment after such return is filed.

Analysis: Once a return is furnished in response to notice under section 148, the assessing authority must apply the reassessment machinery in the same manner as a return filed under section 139. The requirement of notice under section 143(2) is therefore attracted and is not a mere procedural formality. Failure to issue such notice deprives the assessment of valid jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Yes. Issuance of notice under section 143(2) was mandatory.

Issue (iii): Whether the reassessment framed without issuing notice under section 143(2) can be sustained.

Analysis: In the absence of the mandatory notice under section 143(2), the reassessment was framed without valid assumption of jurisdiction. The assessment could not be saved by the revenue's objection regarding delayed return in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: No. The reassessment was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge, the reassessment was annulled, and the remaining grounds were left open without adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A return filed in response to notice under section 148 must be treated as a return for assessment purposes, and the Assessing Officer must issue notice under section 143(2) before completing reassessment; omission of that notice vitiates the reassessment for want of valid jurisdiction.

---