Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order for the year 2018-19, involving proceedings under Section 147. The appeal was delayed by 119 days, which was condoned by the tribunal.
Held
The tribunal held that the assessment order was not sustainable in law because the mandatory Section 143(2) notice was not issued, despite the assessee filing a return in response to a Section 148 notice.
Key Issues
Whether an assessment framed under Section 147 without issuing a mandatory Section 143(2) notice is valid in law.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 143(2), 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Riyaz, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/o-Shri Gulam Ahmad, Ward-1(3), A.K. Traders. H. No. 224/1, Rampur Vill. Juthiya Sadar, Rampur PAN: CEIPR3728A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069340236(1), dated 03.10.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
For the reasons stated in the assesses’s condonation averments, delay of 119 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Learned counsel representing assessee presses his first and foremost legal ground that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned assessment dated 23rd March, 2023 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion, without issuing the mandatory section 143(2) notice despite the fact that the assessment order itself at page 3 indicates that the appellant had filed its return on 15.02.2023 in response to the section 148 notice. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. That being the case, I hereby quote ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) to conclude that such an assessment without issuing section 143(2) notice is not sustainable in law. Quashed accordingly. All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.