RANKINI TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 144

ITA 2639/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 August 2026AY 2017-201815 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order is invalid and consequently quashed. The Tribunal observed that a perusal of the facts clearly showed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer commenced the computation in the assessment order with the term 'income returned by assessee'. If the return had not been filed in response to the notice under Section 148, the assessment order should have indicated that the assessee's communication dated September 29, 2022, was invalid and the return filed was non-est. However, the assessment order did not contain any such reference. Instead, it referred to the income returned by the assessee, indicating that the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's communication and treated the return filed on November 3, 2017, as the return in response to the Section 148 notice. Once a return is accepted as filed in response to a Section 148 notice, the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) becomes compulsory. Since the records clearly showed that no such notice was issued, the impugned assessment order was held to be invalid and quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rankini Traders Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, against the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 50 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The core issue arose from a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on July 22, 2022. The assessee responded on September 29, 2022, stating that the original return filed on November 3, 2017, should be treated as the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice. The assessee contended that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued thereafter, rendering the assessment liable to be quashed. The revenue, represented by the Senior DR, admitted that no Section 143(2) notice was issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order is liable to be quashed for non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after a notice under Section 148 was issued and the assessee responded. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that once a notice under Section 148 was issued and a response was filed, treating the original return as the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice, the subsequent mandatory requirement of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) was not fulfilled. Therefore, the assessment proceedings are vitiated and the assessment order should be quashed. The assessee relied on the principle that a notice under Section 143(2) is a prerequisite for making an assessment under Section 144, especially when a return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148. Revenue's contention: The revenue admitted that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued. However, it was further submitted that the return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 was beyond the prescribed period, and therefore, it was deemed that the assessee had not filed a return in response to the notice under Section 148. Consequently, the requirement of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) did not survive. The revenue prayed for the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) to be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Yashvardhan Baid, FCA

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 25.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2639/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Rankini Traders Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata Vs 313, Todi Chambers, 2 lal Bazar Street, Kol-1. (PAN: AACCR2942R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Yashvardhan Baid, FCA Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2016-17/10275108 dated 09.08.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

Shri Yashvardhan Baid, FCA represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 50 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating sufficient

ITA No.2639/Kol/2024

reasons for the delay. Considering the contents of the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we condone the said delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal of the assessee is being disposed off on merits.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice u/s 148 has been issued on 22.07.2022. The assessee has responded the same on 29.09.2022 intimating that the return filed on 03.11.2017 being original return filed was to be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148. It was the submission that subsequent to the said notice and the letter of the assessee, no notice u/s 143(2) has been issued to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessment has done without issuing notice u/s 143(2) is liable to be quashed.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR admitted that no notice u/s 143(2) has been issued as per the records. The ld. Sr. DR has provided a copy of the order- sheet which reads as follows:

ITA No.2639/Kol/2024

5.1 It was further submitted that the return alleged to have been filed in response to the notice u/s 148 beyond the prescribed period provided in the notice u/s 148 and consequently, it was deemed that the assessee has not filed return in response to notice u/s 148. It was the submission that as no return has been filed in response to notice u/s 148, the requirement

ITA No.2639/Kol/2024

of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) no more survives. It was prayed that the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that no notice u/s 143(2) has been issued. A perusal of page 7 being the last page of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has started the computation with the term ‘income returned by assessee’. If the return has not been filed in response to the notice u/s 148, obviously the assessment order must mention somewhere that the communication dated 29.09.2022 by the assessee to the Assessing Officer in response to the notice u/s 148 is an invalid communication and return alleged to have been filed by the said communication is also treated as invalid or non-est return. There is no such reference or mention in the assessment order. However, the reference is to the contrary wherein the Assessing Officer has himself started the computation from the income returned by the assessee. Thus clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has accepted the communication sent by the assessee on 29.09.2022 and has treated the return filed on 03.11.2017 as the return in response to the notice u/s 148. Once a return has been accepted to have been filed in response to notice u/s 148, then the requirement of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is compulsory. As the records also clearly show that no notice u/s 143(2) has been issued by the Assessing Officer, the impugned assessment order is held to be invalid and consequently quashed.

ITA No.2639/Kol/2024

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 25/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Gopala Gurusamy] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 25/08/2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 148

ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, Sakti
ITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Raipur
ITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), Rajkot
ITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot
ITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →