CONTINENTAL FOUNDATION JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2226/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2026AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory period. Consequently, the assessment framed without a valid notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to raise an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment for want of a proper notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had issued the notice beyond the prescribed time limit.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment framed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit is valid. Whether an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment can be raised at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Respondent: DR (on rotational duty)
Hearing: 17.07.2026Pronounced: 17.07.2026

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XX’s order dated 25.02.2015, passed order No. 128/2013-14, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

Learned counsel representing the assessee, submits at the outset that he seeks to raise an additional ground challenging validity of the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed herein dated 28.03.2013 itself for want of issuance of proper notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. We are informed that the assessee has duly filed its petition to the very effect before the tribunal forming part of the case records as well.

3.

The Revenue, on the other hand raises its vehement technical objection that such a hyper technical issue could not be allowed to be raised vide an additional ground at this belated stage as the same is nothing but gross misuse of the process of law only.

4.

We are afraid that the Revenue’s foregoing technical objection hardly carries any merit. We wish to make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark judgement in NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC); as considered in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287(Mum.)(SB), has settled the issue in the assessee’s favour that this tribunal could very well entertain such a petition raising an additional ground going to the root of the matter in order to determine the correct

tax liability subject to a rider that all the relevant facts duly form part of the records. We wish to emphasise here that the relevant facts qua the assessee’s aforesaid legal plea very much emanate from the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment order itself. We thus admit its additional ground in very terms therefore.

5.

Next comes the tribunal’s adjudication on the aforesaid legal issue. It emerges from a perusal of learned Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 25.03.2013 that the assessee had duly filed its return on 30.09.2009 which stood processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. It was thereafter on 22.08.2011 only that he appears to have issued his section 143(2) notice to the assessee i.e. much beyond the prescribed period of “six months” from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. This being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the learned Assessing Officer’s time limitation to initiate the impugned proceedings in the assessee’s case stood expired on 30.09.2010 whereas his impugned notice came to be issued much later on 22.08.2011. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) has settled the issue against the department that such a assessment in absence of a proper section 143((2) notice is a non-est one in the eyes of law. We thus quash the

impugned assessment dated 28.03.2013 framed in the assessee’s case in very terms.

All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17.07.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →