TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 without there being any reason to believe that income had escaped assessment; 2. passing the reassessment order u/s 147/148 of the Act treating the return of Income tax invalid and without Issuing statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act: 3. confirming the additions made to returned income in a sum of Rs. 1,02,84,232/- being the amount of cash deposited in bank by wrongly invoking section 68 of the Act: 4. The NFAC erred in deciding the appeal without providing the appellant video conferencing as prayed for during the course of appellate proceedings." 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to ground No.2 of grounds of appeal submitted that reassessment made u/s.147 of the Act is bad in law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. The Ld. DR furnished parawise reply to grounds of appeal of the assessee submitted by the AO as under :- "The assessee contends that the assessment is illegal because no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Since the return of income filed on 08.07.2021 was treated as invalid due to lack of verification and for being filed beyond the permitted timeframe, the legal requirement to issue 'notice us 143(2) which applies to valid returns. The AO' properly exercised jurisdiction by issuing a notice u/s 142(1) on 05:07 2021 to gather necessary details for the assessment." 7. As could be seen from the above reply of the AO the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act was treated as invalid as the same wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn filed on 28.10.2021 in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) makes the impugned assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed u/s 148 of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer acted upon the return filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer before completion of assessment u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Act appears to have not issued any mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue also could not show that the Assessing Officer had issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the question now to be adjudicated this appeal is whether the assessment framed u/s 14B r.w.s. 147 of the Act is a valid assessment in the absence of issue of 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 situati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee which are referred to above, it was held that assessment/reassessment finalized without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not a valid assessment/reassessment. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the assessment framed by the AO u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the AY 2016-17 without issue of notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law and void ab initio and consequently the same is hereby quashed." 9. As could be observed from the above decision of the coordinate bench, the return filed by the assessee in that case was treated as invalid for the reason that the return was filed belatedly and without issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act reassessment was completed. The Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'bl....