AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he return filed in response to notice u/s 142(1) is a valid return of income and the same should have been taken on record by the AO. b) The Ld. CIT(A), NEAC Delhi failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO proceeded to frame the assessment u/s 144 solely on the assumption that the assessee had not filed the return of income, whereas the assessee had in fact filed a return in response to notice a/s 142|1) and also appeared personally, which ought to have been taken on record. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi failed to notice that the assessment framed u/s 144 is void ab initio since no statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued after the filing of return in response to notice u/s 142(1) and in the absence of such notice the assessment order is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), NEAC Delhi failed to appreciate that the case was selected for "cash deposits during demonetisation," whereas the AO travelled beyond the limited scope by converting it into a complete scrutiny without approval of the Pr. CIT and contrary to CBDT Circular F.No. 225/402/2018/ITA-II. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....44 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh examination. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. During the course of hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that the legal ground raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is invalid in law as no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was ever issued to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee had filed her return of income on 13.10.2019, though belatedly, yet the return was filed during the pendency of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, it became a valid return in the eyes of law. He further submitted that once a return of income is filed, whether original or belated, the Ld. AO acquires jurisdiction to frame a scrutiny assessment only if a statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act is issued within the prescribed time. In this regard, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Nimmana Narasimharao, Eluru v. ITO, ITA No.50/VIZ/2025 for AY 2017-18 dated 30.09.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 15.03.2018 on 31.03.2019, as invalid, and, thus, had rightly dispensed with the issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act? 16. We shall first deal with the Ld. AR's contention that though the assessee had delayed the filing of his return of income in compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 15.03.2018, and filed the same beyond the period provided in the notice, i.e., on or before 31.03.2018, but during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the A.O. was obligated to have issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, and could not have summarily dispensed with the said statutory obligation cast upon him. 17. It is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 15.03.2018, had filed his "return of income" beyond the period provided in the notice, i.e. on or before 31.03.2018. Admittedly, the A.O. in his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.12.2019, specifically mentioned that the assessee had vide his letter dated 20.11.2019 enclosed a copy of the return of income in response ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The indulgence of the Hon'ble High Court was, inter alia, sought for adjudicating the following substantial question of law. "Whether the return filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1)/139(4) or Section 142(1)/148 can be held as non-est in the eyes of law and has invalidated for the purpose of deciding exemption u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" (emphasis supplied by us) The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the "return of income" filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessment are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. As in the present case before us, the "return of income" filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 15.03.2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been held by us hereinabove to be a valid return of income), had by treating the said "return of income" as invalid, dispensed with the statutory requirement of issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.12.2019, we find that the said issue is covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of ACIT and Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) and is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judicial pronouncements, had held, that the A.O. pursuant to the return of income filed by the assessee remains under the statutory obligation to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for framing the assessment. 20. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 488 (Del). The Hon'ble High Court had held that the absence of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act impregnates the proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, and hence, renders it as invalid in the eyes of law. The aforesaid vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court relying on its earlier order in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (supra), has held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) renders the assessment order void even if the assessee had participated in the proceedings. 22. We thus, based on our aforesaid deliberations conclude as under: (a). the "return of income" filed by the assessee on 31.03.2019 in response to the notice issued by the A.O. under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 15.03.2018, having been filed during the pendency of the assessment proceedings which had culminated vide the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.12.2019, is a valid "return of income" though involving a delay. (b). the A.O by treating the "return of income" filed by the assessee on 31.03.2019 in response to notice u/s 142(1), dated 15.03.2018 as invalid and non-est, had wrongly assumed jurisdiction by dispensing with the statutory obligation cast upon him to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, and wrongly framed the impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.12.2019; AND (c).....