ARCHANA SANJAY TEKALE,MAHARASHTRA PUNE vs. DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Sanjay Tekale, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Plot No.22, Siddharth Tax Department. Building, Kamgar Nagar, Pune- 411018. PAN : AEEPT8204R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar & Smt. Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date of hearing : 18.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16.

2 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeals raised before him by the appellant, even though these grounds of appeal are totally different and not identical to the other grounds which were decided by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer is erred in not issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act prior to finalization of the re-assessment proceedings when the appellant has filed a return of income in response to notice u/s 148 and the same has been considered while framing the assessment order. As such, the Assessing Officer has failed to assume jurisdiction over the case and the said defect is incurable, rendering the assessment order void in the eyes of law? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer is erred in not mentioning the main section i.e. section 143(3) or section 144 under which reassessment order has been passed. The said defect is also incurable and the order passed is bad in law ? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is bad in law as the notices u/s 148A(b) & 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act were issued/passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) rather than a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required by Section 151A of the Act and the CBDT’s Notification dated March 29, 2022. Hence, while issuing such notices/orders, the concerned Authority did not comply with the faceless mechanism as mandated by Section 151A of the Act and by the Notification dated March 29, 2022, which specifies that such notices must be issued by an FAO. The act of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue notices u/s 148A(b) & 148 of the Act and pass the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act is contrary to the provisions of law and without jurisdiction and the entire further proceedings conducted on the basis of such invalid notices/orders are also bad in law as well as illegal. This view has been consistently upheld by the Hon. Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in quiet a high number of cases. In support of her contention, the appellant relied upon one of the recent judgements of the Hon. Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax dated

3 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 03.09.2024. It is therefore prayed that, the assessment order under consideration passed by the Assessing Officer may kindly be held as bad in law and set aside.” 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)is erred in setting aside the assessment to the file of Assessing Officer without deciding the grounds of appeal raised before him by the appellant, which ultimately results in rendering the assessment proceedings initiated in the instant case as bad in law and liable to be quashed and the matter cannot be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer without giving findings on these grounds of appeal ? 6. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of sale of fruits etc and has not furnished her return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information that the assessee has deposited Rs.1,01,35,000/- in her bank account and purchased time deposits of Rs.15,00,000/- and also earned interest income of Rs.2,04,982/-, however, the return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act has not been furnished, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 13.04.2022 after following the procedure as per section 148A of the IT Act. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) dated 04.07.2023 and show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 respectively were issued to the assessee. In response to

4 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 notice dated 13.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, the assessee furnished return of income on 02.01.2024 by declaring an income of Rs.14,18,690/-. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 08.02.2024 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of Rs.1,30,53,690/- as against the income of Rs.14,18,690/- returned by the assessee in return furnished on 02.01.2024 in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,01,35,000/- being cash deposit in bank as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act and addition of Rs.15,00,000/- being time deposit purchased as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wherein legal grounds as well as grounds related with merits of the case were raised. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and passing of de novo assessment order.

5 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book & case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC committed error in restoring the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing de novo assessment order without adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee before him. In this regard, we find that the assessee raised following legal ground before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC :- “2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not issuing a notice u/s 143(2) prior to finalization of the re-assessment proceedings when the appellant has filed a return of income in response to notice u/s 148 and the same has been considered while framing the assessment. In view of the above the Assessing Officer fails to assume jurisdiction over the case and the defect is incurable, rendering the assessment order untenable in the eyes of law.” 7. The assessee also raised following alternate ground before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which is also evident from page no.8 & 9 of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’s order :- “1. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is bad in law as the notices u/s 148A(b) & 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act were issued/passed by the

6 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) rather than a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required by Section 151A of the Act and the CBDT’s Notification dated March 29, 2022. Hence, while issuing such notices/orders, the concerned Authority did not comply with the faceless mechanism as mandated by Section 151A of the Act and by the Notification dated March 29, 2022, which specifies that such notices must be issued by an FAO. The act of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue notices u/s 148A(b) & 148 of the Act and pass the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act is contrary to the provisions of law and without jurisdiction and the entire further proceedings conducted on the basis of such invalid notices/orders are also bad in law as well as illegal. This view has been consistently upheld by the Hon. Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in quiet a high number of cases. In support of his contention, the appellant relied upon one of the recent judgements of the Hon. Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax dated 03.09.2024. It is therefore prayed that the assessment order under consideration passed by the Assessing Officer may kindly be held as bad in law and set aside." 8. From perusal of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we find that the above two legal grounds (relating to non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act and non-adherence of section 151A of the IT Act) were not adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and taking the shelter of proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the IT Act, the matter was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing assessment order de novo, since the assessment order was claimed to be passed u/s 144 of the IT Act. In this regard, we find that the assessee furnished return of income on 02-01-2024 in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act and also furnished

7 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 computation of total income, payment of advance tax instalments, profit & loss account along with balance sheet, details of TDS on other income and statement of long term capital gain which is admitted by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order. Apart from above, the Assessing Officer himself mentioned in the assessment order that :- “since the assessee has shown the interest income of Rs.2,04,982/- in the return of income filed on 02.01.2024 in response to the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, no adverse inference is drawn on this particular issue”. 9. The Assessing Officer has also incorporated the impugned return in the table of variation prepared at page no.4 of the assessment order wherein it has been mentioned that :- “income as return of income filed u/s 148 of the Act – Rs.14,18,690/-”. 10. From the perusal of above observation of the Assessing Officer and table of variation prepared by the Assessing Officer at page no.4 of the assessment order, & also in the light of various judicial pronouncement subsequently discussed, we are of the view that the belated return furnished in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act was accepted and considered by the Assessing Officer,

8 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 therefore, to assume jurisdiction over the case, the Assessing Officer was required to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act. We find, that the assessee therefore, challenged before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that in the absence of notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer fails to assume jurisdiction over the case and consequently it was prayed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to declare the assessment untenable in the eyes of law. However, the above ground was not adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC instead the matter was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass assessment order de novo. We find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC committed error in not deciding the legal ground raised before him. 11. With regard to the challenge of the assessee regarding validity of the assessment order in absence of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, we find support from a coordinate bench decision passed in the case of Kamlesh Pramod Gandhi vs. ITO in ITA No.1567/PUN/2026 order dated 07.07.2026 wherein under identical facts, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and held the

9 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 assessment order invalid which was passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act by observing as under :- “20. Once the return is treated as a valid return, the next question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the assessment order can be held as valid in absence of any notice issued u/s 143(2) when the assessee files the return in response to the notice u/s 148, though, belatedly. 21. We find an identical issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Kantilal Chengede vs. ITO (supra). In that case, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 25.03.2019 and the assessee filed his return of income in response to the same on 11.12.2019 which was after the statutory period of 30 days given by the Assessing Officer. No notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer before completion of the assessment. The Tribunal relying on various decision quashed the assessment order by observing as under: “14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 25.03.2019. We find the assessee in the instant case filed his return of income on 11.12.2019 which is after the statutory period of 30 days given by the Assessing Officer. It is also an admitted fact that the assessment order was passed on 20.12.2019 and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued and served on the assessee before completion of the assessment. Under these circumstances, we have to see as to whether non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act renders the assessment proceedings invalid when the assessee filed the return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act belatedly. 15. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Draft Infrabuild (P.) Ltd. (supra). We find the Hon’ble High Court, following its earlier order in the case of PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. (supra) and various other decisions, has held that the failure by the Assessing Officer to issue a notice to the assessee u/s 143(2) of the Act after the assessee files his return of

10 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025

income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act is fatal to the order of re-assessment proceedings. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under:

11 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025

12 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025

13 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 6. On identical facts, in M.A. No. 239 of 2011 titled as Chand Bihari Agrawal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna decided on 25-7-2023, this Court considered the issue and held against the revenue. 7. We find that the question of law has to be answered in favour of the assesee and against the revenue. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) governs the issue which has been followed in Chand Bihari Agrawal (supra). 8. The Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.” 17. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also supports his case to the proposition that when the assessee files return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, though, belatedly, non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act makes the re-assessment proceeding a nullity. 18. So far as the decision relied on by the Ld. DR is concerned, no doubt, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on an earlier occasion has taken a view that non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act does not make the re-assessment proceedings invalid where the assessee files the return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, it is to be noted that subsequent to this decision, the Hon’ble High Court recently in three other decisions has held that when the assessee files return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, though, belatedly, the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is a mandatory requirement and non- issue of the same makes the re-assessment proceedings invalid. In any case, it is the settled position of law that when two views are possible on an issue, the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has admittedly not issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act after the assessee filed the return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, though, belatedly, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer without following the mandatory requirement of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act makes such re-assessment order a nullity. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the grounds challenging the addition on merit are not being adjudicated.” 22. Since the facts of the in the instant case are identical to the facts of the case already decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited (supra), therefore, we hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer without following the mandatory requirement of issue of notice

14 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 u/s 143(2) makes the re-assessment order an invalid assessment. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 12. Respectfully following the above coordinate bench decision passed in the case of Kamlesh Pramod Gandhi (supra), wherein under identical facts the Tribunal followed the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax - 11 vs. Nagendra Prasad [2023] 156 taxmann.com 19 (Patna) [02-08-2023] and held the assessment order invalid which was passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, we are of the considered opinion that in the instant case in hand, the order passed by the Assessing Officer without following the mandatory requirement of issue of notice u/s 143(2) makes the re-assessment order invalid & without jurisdiction. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and declare the impugned assessment order dated 08.02.2024 as invalid. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. 13. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act and

15 ITA No.2425/PUN/2025 declare the assessment order as invalid, the other grounds raised by the assessee becomes infructuous hence not adjudicated. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 16th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 16th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.21 10:51:21 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.