HIRA LAL DEY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1139/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 July 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after compliance with Section 148 is a mandatory requirement. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147, and the assessee complied with the notice. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) before making an addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment framed by the AO is invalid due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after reopening the case under Section 147.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, DR
Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.01.2026 for the AY 2018-19.

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground no.4 which is extracted below:-

“4. For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the assessment order passed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) when the notice u/s 148 issued by the ld. AO was duly complied with as per law.” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income at ₹6,27,030/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2022. The said notice was

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2022. I note that the said notices were complied by the assessee vide letter dated 08.04.2022 informing the ld. AO that return filed originally u/s 139(1) of the Act may kindly be treated return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. I further note that the ld. AO has not issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as is apparent from the copies of e- proceedings sheets placed before me by the counsel of the assessee and also as is apparent from the para 2 of the assessment order, wherein the chronology of various notices and show cause issued is given. In our opinion, the non- issuance of notice u/s 143(2) which is a mandatory notice for assuming the power to scrutinize the return of income and for passing order failing which would render the assessment framed by the ld. AO sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench

“7. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued after the assessee complied with the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act vide letter dated 27.03.2019, wherein it was stated that the return filed originally u/s 139(1) of the Act on 17.09.2012 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. We note that despite that the AO has not issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as is apparent from the assessment order and e- proceedings statement for notice also confirmed that after compliance to section 148 of the Act ,no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. In our opinion the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory requirement for assuming jurisdiction to frame the assessment failing which the assessment itself is rendered invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the following decision in the case of Dynamo Realcom Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO Ward1(1), ITA No. 1999/Kol/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 order dated 14.01.2026. Therefore, Ground No. 5 is also allowed. 8. Since, we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issues and the other grounds raised on merit are not being decided at this stage and are being left open to be decided if the need arises for the same in future. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. Since, the facts of the case before us are materially same vis- à-vis, the decision of the co-ordinate Bench as cited above, I am , therefore, inclined to quash the assessment framed by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ground no. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 16.07.2026.

Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 16.07.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →