RAMESH KUMAR TAGRAJJI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-19(3)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal issue of the non-issuance of the Section 143(2) notice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to examine the records and decide the issue.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals concerned assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The primary grievance was that the reassessment orders were framed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment order is bad in law due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after reopening the assessment under Section 147.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 148,Section 139(1),Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd.66 citing214 Taxmann 83 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Bharat Andhale सुनवाईकी तारीख / Date of Hearing: 14/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
These are appeals preferred by assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.06.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Though none appeared for the assessee, written submission dated 13.03.2023 has been placed before me and from perusal of the same it is noted that the assessee is mainly aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) who has not decided the legal issue raised by the assessee before him. [i.e. assessment framed without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of AY 2010- Rameshkumar Tagraji Jain the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter “the Act”) is bad in law]. From the written submission it is discerned that the assessee had filed his return of income for both years u/s 139(1) of the Act; and later on the case of the assessee was reopened for both AY’s by issuance of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Pursuant to receipt of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee had requested the AO to treat the original return filed as return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act (which fact has been acknowledged by the AO in both assessment orders).The legal issue raised by the assessee is that after reopening the assessment u/s 147 of Act, the AO ought to have issued the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before framing the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act. According to assessee, the AO failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for both the assessment years (AY 2010-11 and 2011-12) which legal issue had been raised before the Ld. CIT(A) which fact is discernible from page no 4 of the impugned orders, whereinthe Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the same (ground no. 1) which reads as under. "Ground No 1: Validity of the reassessment and order passed: 1. That the learned AO has erred in law and facts by issuing notice under section 147 and further the ld.AO has erred in law in not following the procedure of the reassessment thereof and therefore the order passed by the ld.AO is required to be quashed. In this regard it is most respectfully submitted as under:- a) That the learned AO has not given the reasons for the reassessment along with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. b) That the learned AO has not provided the copy of the approval granted under section 151 of the Act. c). That from the perusal of the assessment order it is evident that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued though the return of income has been filed and the order under section 143(3) of the Act has been passed”.[Emphasis given by me] , AY 2010- Rameshkumar Tagraji Jain 3. Further it is noted that Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order have even reproduced the case law which assessee was relying upon in respect to this grounds of appeal
[Ground No.1 (c) against the effect of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, which vitiates the order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act as bad in law by citing the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ACIT Vs Geno pharmaceuticalsLimited (2013) 32 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay)] at page no 5 which reads as under;
3. Non-issue of notice under section 143(2) of the act does not give jurisdiction for the assessment. It is hereby stated that when no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which is a jurisdictional notice, is issued to the assessee in response to return filed under section 148 of the Act, the assessment framed is invalid and bad in law. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2013) 32 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) wherein the High Court has held that notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory and in absence of such service AO cannot proceed to make an inquiry on return filed in compliance with notice issued u/s. 148.”
In the written submission, the assessee has also cited few more case laws on this legal issue which are as under:-
(a) ACIT Vs Geno Pharmaceuticals Limited (214 Taxman 83)(2013) (Bom) (b) A M Muthiah Vs DCIT (ITA No.1101/Mum/2014) dated 11/12/2017. (c) Sajjan Kumar Aggarwal Vs ITO (ITA No.307/Mum/2019) dated 31/1/2020 (d) Visa Chemical Industries Vs ACIT (ITA No.3902/Mum/2018) dated 16/7/2019. AY 2010- Rameshkumar Tagraji Jain 5. Therefore, according to the assessee, the re-assessment order framed by the AO after reopening the assessment was bad in law for the omission on the part of AO not to have issued the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Per contra Ld. DR fairly conceded that Ld. CIT(A) even though has reproduced the written of submission wherein the assessee had specifically assailed the action of the AO (Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act), however, he didn’t deliberate on this legal issue. Therefore, he requested that the matter/issue may restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for examination of the question of fact as to whether the AO had issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before framing of the re-assessment order in both assessment years [AY 2010-11 & AY 2011-12].
Having heard the Ld. DR and after perusal of the written submission placed before me, it is noted that the assessee during the first appellet proceeding before Ld. CIT(A) had filed the written submission mainly assailing the validity of the action of the AO to have framed the reassessment order without issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and cited the case laws in support of the legal issue discussed (supra). Thus it is noted that the assessee has raised this legal issue before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of reassessment orders framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act without issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. On careful reading of assessment order it is noted that AO has not made any mention of issuance/serving of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on the assessee before framing of re-assessment order. Having said so, however, as noted (supra), Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this specific legal issue. Therefore, I am inclined to set-aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file. With a direction to first of all examine the re-assessment records and record a finding of fact as to whether the AO during the re-assessment proceedings had issued/served the notice u/s 4 , AY 2010- Rameshkumar Tagraji Jain issued/served the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on assessee before he framed the re- assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act and thereafter, adjudicate the legal issue raised by the assessee in the light of the case laws cited by assessee (supra). Needless to say that assessee should be given proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order on the legal issue and in accordance to law.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026