TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the concerned Assessing Officer ('AO') was directed to be decided afresh after verification of the issues discussed therein. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned revisional order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised various ground as mentioned in form 36. Along with the appeal, a stay application has also been filed by the assessee, registered separately. 3. The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee/appellant is engaged in the wholesale trading of electrical and lighting products. For the A.Y. 2016-17, the appellant derived income from afore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hase'. Hence, the order passed by the AO was found to be erroneous so far as being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, the assessee was given opportunity to submit response along with documentary evidence on the said issue. The assessee filed objection to the issuance of the notice u/s 263 of the Act on 18.03.2024 stating that the assessee has raised objection to the notice u/s 148 and without deciding the objections, the assessment order was passed on an invalid notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was submitted that the reassessment proceeding was invalid and void and before passing the order u/s 263, Ld. PCIT has not examined the proceedings by the AO if the same were valid or not. The ld. PCIT has rejected the objection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant after the filing of return of income in response to notice under section 148, though the same was filed with delay. 2. That the omission to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2) being a jurisdictional defect, the Assessing Officer did not acquire lawful jurisdiction to frame the reassessment under section 147, rendering the entire proceedings null and void. 3. That as the reassessment order itself is invalid and void ab initio, the consequent revisionary order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act is also bad in law, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, since it seeks to revise a non est order which has no legal existence. 4. That t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Silverline (2016) 383 ITR 455 (Del.) wherein it was held that "Order of reassessment cannot be passed without notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. The jurisdictional error cannot be cured by Section 292BB of the I.T. Act". The assessee has further relied the case of ITAT Delhi in ITA No. 2269/Del/2017 reported as [2018] 171 taxlok.com (IT) 386 (ITAT-Delhi) order dated 10 December, 2018, wherein the similar issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee by holding that invalid reassessment order cannot be revised by the Commissioner stating that since the reassessment order itself was bad in law, could not be revised under section 263 of the Act, therefore, the proceeding under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Westlife Development Ltd., vs. PCIT 49 ITR (Tribu.) 406 in which it was held "allowing the appeal (i) that jurisdiction aspect of the Order passed in the primary proceedings can be examined in collateral proceedings also. Thus, the assessee could be permitted to challenge the validity of the Order passed under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order was non-est." Since the reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, rightly contended that the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. On this ground itself the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act are bad in law and liable to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Board of Direct Taxes Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989, which finds reference in the decision of this Court in case of Dy. CIT v. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (supra), which has been reproduced in paragraph 8.5 hereinabove. A perušal of the above circular indicates that if an assessee, after furnishing the return of income, does not receive a notice under section 143(2) of the Act from the Department within the prescribed period, then he can take it that the return filed by him has become final and no scrutiny proceedings could be started in respect of that return. This is the kind of significance that has been attached to a notice under section 143(2) of the Act by the Central Board of Direct Taxes itself." 11. It is argued by t....