HARI SHANKAR KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

1 ITA No. 2981/Del/2026 Hari Shankar Kumar Vs. ITO

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2981/Del/2026 (A.Y 2017-18) Hari Shankar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, 243, DDA Flats, Pocket-13, Ward-70(1), Civic Dwarka Phase-1, Dwarka, Centre, New Delhi Delhi-110045 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AHDPK9709J Assessee by : Sh. Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13/05/2026 Date of pronouncement 10/08/2026

O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, J M.: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order dated 08..01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter

referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC] under Section 250 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the

Assessment Order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit,

Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’) under

Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year

2017-18.

declaring total income of Rs. 10,12,970/-.On receipt of information

2 ITA No. 2981/Del/2026 Hari Shankar Kumar Vs. ITO

that the assessee had purchased immovable property below circle rate

at Rs. 18,50,000/- as against circle rate at Rs. 36,90,000/-, the sale

consideration of the property was much less than the stamp duty

valuation, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice

under Section 148 after recording reasons that income chargeable to

tax had escaped assessment and the differential amount of Rs.

18,40,000/- was to be taxed under Section 56(2) in the hands of the

assessee (buyer), notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on

22.03.2023 which was responded. The AO reframed the assessment

by adding Rs. 18,40,000/- to the returned income. In appeal before

the Learned CIT(A) it was stated that the reassessment was void ab

initio due to non issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and approval

under Section 151 was not provided. Addition based on circle rate was

not justified. The property was purchased at distress value and the

valuation report issued by a registered valuer was ignored. The AO

failed to refer the matter to the DEVO despite requires.

participated in the proceedings and furnished reply, documents and

valuer’s report. Section 292BB provides power if assessee has

participated in the proceedings he cannot subsequently object to non-

service or improper service rejected the objection made by the

3 ITA No. 2981/Del/2026 Hari Shankar Kumar Vs. ITO

assessee and affirmed the action of the learned AO. Aggrieved the

assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

parties and perused the material available on record. There is nothing

to deny the fact that in this particular case mandatory statutory notice

under Section 143(2) was not issued by the department. Section

143(2) is a mandatory condition precedent without which the Ld. AO

has no power to frame a scrutiny assessment. So as far as the

contention of the Learned DR that notice under Section 142(1) was

issued and the assessee actively participated in the proceedings does

not confer jurisdiction to complete a regular scrutiny assessment

under Section 143(3). The omission to issue notice under Section

143(2) is substantive, fatal, illegal and cannot be cured by provision of

Section 292BB of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

ACIT v. Blue Moon reported in321 ITR 362 (SC) has settled that the

requirement of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and failure

to issue renders the entire assessment void and incurable. The

Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. Silver

Line reported in (2016) 382 ITR 455 (Del) in respect to invoking of

provision of Section 148 read with section 292BB it has dealt with the

issues as to whether Section 292B would apply with regard to failure

to issue notice in reassessment proceedings and held that the failure

4 ITA No. 2981/Del/2026 Hari Shankar Kumar Vs. ITO

to issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act cannot be condoned

by referring to Section 292BB and merely because assessee

participated in proceedings pursuant to notice issued under

Section148 does not obviate mandatory requirement of Assessing

Officer to issue notice under Section 148 143(2) to the assessee before

finalising the reassessment. Respectfully following the aforesaid

judicial precedent it is held that for want of issuance of notice under

Section 143(2) of the Act, the scrutiny assessment framed by the

Assessing Officer is void-ab-initio and is unsustainable in the eye of

law. The assessment is, thus, quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/08/2026. Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 10/08/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

5 ITA No. 2981/Del/2026 Hari Shankar Kumar Vs. ITO