TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the ex-parte order and that too without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without providing the opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice and Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in holding that there has not been any compliance to the notices issued on 14-06-2023, 10-04-2024 and 18-04-2024 whereas these notices were not served upon the appellant. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned reassessment order and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without comply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sses as claimed by the assessee. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the finding of Ld. AO in treating the return filed u/s 148 as invalid return." 2. The assessee also filed the following additional ground in the petition for admission of additional ground under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules: 1. "That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned re-assessment order and that too without issuing the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time and in accordance with law." 3. The Ld. Counsel for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the return as invalid return and since the return was treated as invalid the Assessing Officer need not issue notice u/s 143(2) before completion of assessment. 7. In rebuttal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that even in ex-parte assessment when once return is filed by the assessee in response to notice issued u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 9. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) considered almost an identical situation examined "whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the assessment for the concerned year was not effective because of lack of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act in the given facts of the case" the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decline to answer the question on an appeal filed by the Revenue. The Hon'ble High Court further affirming the order of the Tribunal held as under: "14. In any event, factually the Assessee filed a return pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, notwithstanding that it may not have filed a return in the first ....