TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment and order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat (For short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 406/SRT/2024 for Assessment Year 2015-2016 by proposing the following questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in holding that the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is null and void in absence of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, without considering that the assessee has never filed return of income in response to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, as required? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in holding that the order passed u/s. 263 cannot be sustained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m in the income-tax portal. Since the LLP was incorporated on 22.06.2016 i.e., after 31.03.2015, it was not allowed to file return for Assessment Year 2015-2016. In view of such facts, the Assessing Officer observed that return should be filed by assessee manually and order should also be passed manually. Since it was not possible in faceless scheme, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.03.2022 framed assessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act at Rs. 'Nil' income without making any addition. 5. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) examined the records and found that the assessee had received accommodation entries of Rs. 1,55,55,450/- from M/s Maruti Enterprises. Learned PCIT observed that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther stated that there was credible information received from ADIT (Inv.), Unit 1(2), Ahmedabad that assessee received accommodation entry from M/ s Maruti Enterprises, who is a proven paper concern engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries. Rs. 1,55,55,450/- was received by assessee from the bank account of M/s Maruti Enterprises. However, the Assessing Officer has not called for the bank account of assessee and has also not issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the bank and obtained various details along with KYC. The Assessing Officer has simply accepted the contention of assessee that LLP was not in existence during the relevant time and it had not received any accommodation entry. It was observed that the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. AR that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the AO. The revenue was asked to verify the record and confirmed if any notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the AO. They have not confirmed about issuance of the said notice. Hence, it is clear that the order was passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2). As argued by the Ld. AR, the reassessment order passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not valid. For this, he has relied on the decision in case of DCIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts, 287 ITR 360 (Guj.). From the facts discussed above, we find that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued by AO. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts (supra) has held that where notice u/s 143(2) was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing the above decisions, we hold that the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act is null and void in absence notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 12. Since the impugned order of the AO has been held to be invalid, the question that arises is whether the action of the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act could be sustained. The Ld. AR has argued that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act is invalid because reopening u/s 147 as well as subsequent assessment order is unsustainable in law. We have upheld validity of the reopening but held that the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act is unsustainable. Since the order u/s 147 of the Act itself, is not valid, any revision order u/s 263 cannot be sustained. In order to assume jurisdiction u/s 2....