Valid scrutiny notice after return filing is indispensable; its absence voids the assessment despite service-defect provisions.

A notice under section 143(2) issued before the return of income is non est and cannot confer jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). As no valid notice was issued after the return, the assessment was void from inception; section 292BB could cure defects in service but not the complete absence of a valid statutory notice. The search-year assessment was therefore annulled. The remaining appeals, dismissed ex parte owing to the taxpayer's age, medical and personal circumstances and Covid-19 disruption, were restored for fresh first-appellate adjudication, subject to cooperation and costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte dismissal of the six appeals by the first appellate authority warranted restoration for fresh adjudication; (ii) Whether an assessment under section 143(3) can stand where the notice under section 143(2) was issued before the return of income and no valid notice was issued thereafter.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte dismissal of the six appeals by the first appellate authority warranted restoration for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The assessee's non-participation was attributed to advanced age, medical ailments, personal circumstances and disruption during the Covid-19 period. Since the matters involved search assessments and substantial additions, and the assessee undertook to cooperate in fresh proceedings, a further opportunity was considered appropriate. The revenue would not be prejudiced by a de novo hearing, subject to payment of costs and cooperation by the assessee.

Conclusion: The six appeals were restored to the first appellate authority for de novo adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an assessment under section 143(3) can stand where the notice under section 143(2) was issued before the return of income and no valid notice was issued thereafter.

Analysis: The admitted position was that the return was filed on 21.12.2015, whereas the notice under section 143(2) had been issued on 18.09.2015, with no subsequent notice. A notice under section 143(2) issued before filing of the return is non est and cannot confer jurisdiction for a scrutiny assessment. Section 292BB cures defects in service of a notice that has emanated from the department, but does not cure complete absence of a valid statutory notice.

Conclusion: The assessment lacked jurisdiction for want of a valid notice under section 143(2) after the return; it was void ab initio and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The search-year assessment was annulled, while the remaining assessment years require fresh first-appellate adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid notice under section 143(2), issued after filing of the return, is an indispensable jurisdictional condition for an assessment under section 143(3), and its complete absence is not cured by section 292BB.

---