VISHVNATH BATHLA,MEERUT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(2)(1) , MUZAFFARNAGAR

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.50,45,440/-. Based on the information flagged on

Against the said order, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the additions made by AO. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the reopening of the assessment by rejecting the objections raised by the assessee.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein in addition to the regular grounds of the taken, assessee has taken one additional ground No. 1 relating to the completion of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 19.11.2019 without issue of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and further that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the Ao not having pecuniary based upon the returned income as per CBDT instruction No. 1/2011.

Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that these grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and borne out from the Assessment Order itself wherein the AO never issued notice u/s 143(2) before completion of assessment though the assessee has filed the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 within the permissible time allowed. Further since the return of income was filed having total income of Rs. 50,45,440/-, in terms of CBDT instruction No.1/2011, pecuniary jurisdiction lies with the ACIT /DCIT and with ITO however, in the instant case the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the ITO, Ward 2(4) Meerut. The ld. AR submits that these grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and should be admitted.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR in terms of the submission filed stated as under:

The contention of the ld. Sr. DR was that the assessee has never challenged the legality of the order on non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) and no specific reason/explanation was given. It is observed that the grounds of appeal now taken are purely legal in nature and requires no verification. The Hon’ble

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the Assessment Order, it is observed that the fact of filing of return on both the occasions i.e. on 20.04.2019 and on 08.10.2019 has not been disputed by the lower authorities. It is further observed from the Assessment Order that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued though the assessee has filed the return of income in response to notice u/s 148.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 has held that the omission on the part of revenue to issue notice u/s 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable. This view is further supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Nopany & Sons (2022) 136 Taxman.com 414 (Calcutta). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Shree Jai

As observed above, in the instant case, the AO has completed the assessment without assuming the jurisdiction by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and therefore, the consequent Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law and is hereby quashed. Additional ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed.

Since we have already allowed the additional ground no. 1, the other grounds been taken by the assessee become academic in nature.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15/05/2026.