PIYUSH KUMAR SARDA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(2),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1099/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2026AY 2019-20203 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee complied with the Section 148 notice is a fatal defect. The assessment framed without this mandatory notice is invalid and a nullity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the case was reopened under Section 147. The assessee requested their original return be treated as a response to the Section 148 notice. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment without issuing a notice under Section 143(2).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment framed under Section 147 is invalid due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee's compliance with the Section 148 notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1099/KOL/2026 (Assessment Year:2019-20) Piyush Kumar Sarda, ITO, 3/1B, Sri Hariram Goenka Street, Vs. Ward – 44(2), Kolkata – 700001, West Bengal Kolkata [PAN:ATBPS4944D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Respondent by: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 25.02.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

2.

At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) pressed Ground No.6, which is extracted below:

“6. For that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since no statutory notice as required under the law was issued when the return in response to notice u/s 148 was duly filed within the time allowed. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2019, declaring total income of Rs.1,68,510/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’) by

ITA No.1099/Kol/2026/AY 2019-20 Piyush Kumar Sarda vs. ITO issuing notice u/s 148 after following the procedure laid down under the Act. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 12.04.2023. The assessee complied with the said notice vide letter dated 04.05.2025 submitting that return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31.10.2019 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO did not issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The AO, thereafter, proceeded to conduct the assessment proceeding and finally assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 19.03.2025 by making addition of Rs.48,46,179/- as undisclosed income u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

4.

The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) vehemently submitted before us that non-issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act by the AO is fatal and goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the assessment framed by the AO u/s 147/144/144B is nullity and bad in law and may accordingly be quashed. In defence of his arguments the ld. AR relied in case of Chandrani Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, in ITA No. 665/Kol/2025, dated 05.03.2026, wherein similar issue has ben decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in favour of the assessee.

5.

The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR), on the other hand submitted that assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, there was no need to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly no notice/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO after the assessee informed the AO vide letter dated 04.05.2023 that return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act may be treated in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the AO framed the assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In our opinion, the assessment framed by the AO is invalid sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as the mandatory notice has not been issued by AO, which is not curable. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Chandrani Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the Bench has held as under:

ITA No.1099/Kol/2026/AY 2019-20 Piyush Kumar Sarda vs. ITO “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 Ward-1(1), ITA No. 1999/Kol/2024 Α.Υ. 2013-14 order dated 14.01.2026. Therefore, Ground No. 5 is also allowed.” 7. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench (supra), quash the assessment framed by the AO. The ground no 6 is allowed.

8.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 10/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 10/07/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. 2. 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY //

Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, 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 →