PAHWA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 32, DELHI

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

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5749/Del/2026 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 PAHWA BUILDTECH PRIVATE VS. DCIT, CC-32, LIMITED, NEW DELHI 1 UA, JAWAHAR NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 055 (PAN: AAECP3976B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Neeraj Mangla, CA & Sh. P.K. Bansal, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 05.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2026

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

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal-30), Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A),

Delhi-7/11130/2019-20 dated 24.03.2026. Assessment was framed by the

ITO, Ward 19(3), Delhi for the AY 2012-13 u/s 147/143(3) of the Income

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

30.12.2019.

u/s. 143(2) of the Act vide ground no. 4 which read as under:-

“4. That against filing of original income tax return and return in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, neither notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act nor show cause notice prior proceeding to make additions to the income of assessee company has been issued for the year under consideration. This fact is evident from the details of notices issued during re-assessment proceedings. Further on this issue various judicial decision were filed before the CIT(Appeal). Under such circumstances the reassessment proceedings completed by Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Hon’ble CIT Appeal vide order dated 24.3.2026 deserved to be quashed and may please be quashed.”

3 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income

originally on 21.02.2013, which was processed by the department u/s. 143(1)

of the Act. Subsequently, revenue received information that the assessee has

obtained loan and advances for purchase of property which was from the

persons having no net worth. Therefore, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated

31.3.2019 was issued and accordingly, assessment was framed u/s. 143(3)

read with section 147 of the Act. The AO made the addition (which in

dispute) for share application money received from Smt. Shanti Devi Rs. 30

lacs and from Smt. Sunita Nayar Rs. 5 lacs which has not been explained by

the assessee in terms of section 68 of the Act.

the ground regarding non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and

accordingly, urged before the ld. CIT(A) to quash the assessment, as the

2 | P a g e

same is invalid. The CIT(A) after taking the Remand Report from the AO,

confirmed the action of the AO for assuming jurisdiction for framing of

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

114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

from the beginning that there is no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel

for the assessee explained that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the

AO on 31.3.2019 and in compliance to the same assessee filed return of

income for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 on 20.11.2019 (a copy fo the

acknowledgement thereof is enclosed in Assessee’s paper book-1 at page no.

23). The ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that the AO issued notice

u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice on various dates and accordingly

assessment was completed by making the addition of Rs. 35 lacs as

unexplained share application money. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further

stated that no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by the AO and this fact was

admitted by the AO in his remand report submitted before the CIT(A) vide

letter issued vide F.No. :DCIT/Cc-32/Misc./2025-26/1188 dated 25.3.2026

wherein, the AO has reproduced the ground raised by the assesee as under:- 6.1 Ground no. 1 – Perversity due to non issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 3 | P a g e

a) That notice u/s. 148 of the Act was uploaded by Ld. AO on e- filing portal on 31.3.2019, however, as evident from page 2-3 of paper book, the said notice was not served on any email of the assessee company. b) That the notice dated 8.11.2019 was first served on email of assessee company and the assessee company filed return of income u/s. 148 of the Act on 20.11.2019. c) It is pertinent to mention here that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was ever issued by AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the said fact is evident from list of notices during reassessment proceedings as extracted from e-filing portal and enclosed at page 2-5 of the paper book. d) Since no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings, the reassessment order passed by Ld. AO deserves to be quashed and many please be quashed.

Comments of AO: (i) It is submitted that notice u/s. 148 of the aCt was issued through ITBA Portal on 31.3.2019 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2018-19/1015620862(1). Further, on perusal of the e- filing portal, it is noticed that the said notice is available at assessee’s portal. Thus, ground raised by assessee regarding non-receipt of such notice is devoid of any merits.

Further, it is to mention that on perusal of the assessment record (case history) on ITBA portal no notice u/s. 143(2) notice was found. However, since this original case records (manual file) are not available with this office as assessment record was passed by then JAO i.e. ITO, Ward-19(3). Further, this office has sent multiple email to the JAO for requisition of original case records, no reply/case record has been received till date. Therefore, no comments are warranted against the issuance of 143(2) notice by the undersigned.”

assessment records. Consequently, the reassessment is bad in law as there is no jurisdiction to frame the jurisdiction u/s. 143(2) of the Act. For this

4 | P a g e

assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal reported in [2019] 417 ITR 325 (SC)

wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC)

wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue including the

applicability of provision of section 292BB of the Act by holding as under:-

“7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in time; (c) served upon him in an improper manner. According to Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate, since the Respondent had participated in the proceedings, the provisions of Section 292BB would be a complete answer. On the other hand, Mr. Ankit Vijaywargia, learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondent submitted that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was never issued which was evident from the orders passed on record as well as the stand taken by the Appellant in the memo of appeal. It was further submitted that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act being perquisite, in the absence of such notice, the entire proceedings would be invalid.

service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on the part of the assessee. It is however, to be noted that the Section does not save complete absence of notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department intended to cure complete absence of notice itself.

controvert the above facts, but she agued that Ld. CIT(A) rightly applied the

provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 wherein, it is

presumed that notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and the assessee is participating

in the proceedings.

noted that admittedly this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das

Khandelwal (Supra) that in case there is no notice u/s. 143(2), no assessment

can be framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. AO in his remand report dated

25.3.2026 clearly admitted that as per case records of ITBA portal no notice

u/s. 143(3) is available. Further, it has been admitted by the AO from the

records that manual file is not available with the jurisdictional AO wherein,

the assessment order was passed by the ITO, Ward 19(3) and email was sent 6 | P a g e

to requisitioned the original case records, but no reply has been received till

date. It means that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued and

accordingly, the assessment framed is without notice u/s. 142(3) is invalid and

quashed as such.

we have already adjudicated the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the assessee,

we hold the other pleadings have become academic and accordingly dismissed

as such.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

SRBhatnagar Date: 07-08-2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench 7 | P a g e