ITO, WARD-18(3), NEW DELHI vs. NORM CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “A’’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1008/Del/2021 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 ITO, WARD 18(3), VS. M/S NORM CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI 1-C-1/2, FLAT NO. 10, MODEL TOWN, NEW DELHI – 110 009 (PAN: AAACN0303L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Praveen Kumar, Manager Revenue by : Sh. Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2026

ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : This appeal of the revenue is arising out of the order of the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal-37), Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A),

Delhi-37/10020/20176-17 dated 31.08.2020. Assessment was framed by the

ITO, Ward 13(3), Delhi for the AY 2002-03 u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) vide his order dated 18.12.2007.

appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue for which the revenue has filed the

condonation application. After perusing the condonation application and after

hearing both the sides, we are of the considered view that the delay in dispute

has been caused due to sufficient cause, thus, the delay of 284 days in filing

the appeal is condoned and appeal of the revenue is admitted.

is as under:-

“3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding in para 7.6 that the notice under section 143(2) was not served upon the assessee and, therefore, the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s. 144 read with section 147 was invalid and void ab initio, whereas issuance / service of notice under section 143(2) was not required in the present case since no return of income was filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act.”

on 31.10.2002 showing loss of Rs. 47,640/-. The assessee was engaged in the

business of share trading / investment and financial activity. The return of the

assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the case was reopened and

selected for scrutiny. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 147/144 of the

act vide order dated 18.12.20087 at a total income of Rs. 3,99,52,360/- by

making addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that reasons for

reopening the assessment were not furnished to the assessee by the AO till the

2 | P a g e

date of completion of assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not

served upon the assessee. Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us.

stated that in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, assessee vide its letter

dated 20.4.2007 has intimated that assessee filed its return of income on time

i.e. on 31.10.2002 vide acknowledgement no. 2506.

circumstance of the case. We note that AO in his assessment order AO noted

that the reasons were supplied to the assessee vide letter dated 1.6.2007 and

sent through speed post, but the same was returned unserved on 28.10.2007,

hence, objections was not raised. Similarly, notice u/s. 143(2)/142(1) and

questionnaire were also issued on 11.10.2007 and the same were also

returned unserved and remained uncomplied. However, in response to notice 3 | P a g e

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28.3.2006, assessee vide his letter dated 20.4.2007

has intimated that the return of income tax for the assessment year 2002-03

was filed in time i.e. on 31.10.2002 vide acknowledgement no. 2506 and also

requested to supply the reasons for reopening the case. In view of above, it

reveals that notice u/s. 143(2) was not served upon the assessee nor where the

“reasons recorded to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act” provided

/served upon the assessee. It is noted that the in the instant case the notice u/s.

148 was issued on 28.3.2006 and the address of the assessee was Flat No. 101,

Ansal Building, B-1-2, Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex, Delhi and the

reasons recorded were sent on 1.6.2007 but were returned unserved on

28.10.2007 i.e. after a period of 5 months and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued

on 11.10.2007 but the same was also returned unserved. It is also noted that

in the subsequent assessment year i.e. 2003-04 which was taken up for

scrutiny and order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed vide order dated

31.1.2006 i.e. two months prior to issue of notice u/s. 148 and the address of

the assessment year 2003-04 was same as for AY 2002-03 and the assessment

For AY 2002-03 was completed at the returned income. In AY 2003-04, the

notice u/s. 143(2) was served by affixture. Similarly, the case of the

assessment for AY 2006-07 was also taken up for scrutiny and case was

completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 8.12.2008 (after a completion of the

4 | P a g e

present assessment). The address in this return was 309-A, Vakil Chambers,

A-115, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, New Delhi. The above facts clearly establish

that the addresses of the assessee as per ITRs filed for AY 2003-04 and 2006-

07 and addresses of the Directors were available as per record of the AO and

the notice u/s. 143(2) for AY 2003-04 too was served by affixture at the said

address. It is well settled law that for passing the order u/s. 147 the recording

of reasons u/s. 148 and communication thereof to the assessee concerned is

mandatory and copy for the same have to be supplied to the assessee. In view

of the aforesaid factual matrix, Ld. CIT(A) rightly held that in the present

case the reasons for reopening the assessment were not furnished to the

assessee by the AO till the date of completion of assessment i.e. 18.12.2007

and the notice u/s. 143(2) was also not served upon the assessee, therefore,

the reasons for reopening the assessment were not furnished to the assessee by

the AO till the date of completion of assessment and the notice u/s. 143(2) of

the Act was also not served upon the assessee, thus, the reassessment order

passed by the AO u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 was rightly held as invalid and void ab

initio, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the

same and reject the ground raised by the revenue. Our view is fortified by the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue

Moon reported in 324 ITR 372 (2010) (SC) wherein it has held that in the

5 | P a g e

absence of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act the assessment framed by the

Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed

have already adjudicated the issue of jurisdiction against the revenue and in

favour of the assessee, thus, we hold the other pleadings have become

academic and accordingly dismissed as such.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

SRBhatnagar Date: 12-08-2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench

6 | P a g e