SHRI RAJVIR SINGH,ALIGARH UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4 (1) (1), ALIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”, AGRA BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITANo.598/AGR/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Rajvir Singh, vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), A-10, Raj Palace, Aligarh. Pragati Vihar Marris Road, Aligarh – 202 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN: AENPS9582A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of Order : 22.06.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 15.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At the time of filing of appeal, the Registry has pointed out a defect that appeal is time barred by 40 days. In response thereof, the ld. counsel for the assessee

2 ITA No.598/AGR/2025

submitted that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed additional ground of appeal under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and it is purely legal issue and the same is reproduced below :- “That no notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act has been issued on filing of return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 147/144B of the Act is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed as such.”

3 ITA No.598/AGR/2025

being purely legal, we proceeded to admit the additional ground of appeal being a legal issue. 7. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of his wife, Prem Lata Verma, in ITA No.441/Agr/2025 order dated 15.01.2026. Accordingly, he prayed that the present appeal may be allowed by following the aforesaid decision. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the ld. AR relied on the order of the ITAT, Agra Bench in his wife case. From the said order, we observed that assessee therein has raised a legal ground i.e. "That the assessment order concluded 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act is bad in the eyes of law as well as on facts due to the non-issuance of statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act despite the fact that it was duly intimated that the original return filed may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act." 10. Further we observed that the coordinate Bench after hearing rival submissions and material placed on record decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee therein by observing as under :-

4 ITA No.598/AGR/2025

“8. The sum and substance of assessee’s grievance raised through additional ground No. 7 is as to whether the entire assessment proceedings completed u/s. 147 of the Act are bad in law for want of issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, specifically when the assessee filed the return of income u/s. 139 of the Act for the year under consideration? 9. It is an undisputed fact that the assessment proceedings u/s. 147/144 of the Act were completed on 29.02.2022 without issuing statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. We note that the assessee had filed a paper book containing 27 pages and has enclosed the acknowledgement of ITR dated 14.01.2017(ROI date mentioned as 31.03.2018 in assessee’s submissions, which is part of the assessment order). We further note that the assessee, vide her response dated 17.03.2022 had requested the Assessing Officer to treat the return filed by assessee u/s. 139 of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 as the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 10. For easy understanding, section 143(2) reads as under : “………………. (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return. ……………………….” 11. Perusal of afore-quoted section 143(2) goes to show that the Assessing Officer was mandatorily required to serve statutory notice u/s. 143(2) upon the assessee, if he considered it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee had not understated the income or had not computed excessive loss or had not under- paid the tax in any manner. 12. Learned AR for assessee has referred order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of ITAT, Bangalore in Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore (ITA No. 823, 824 & 825/Bang/2025 for A.Yrs. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18), wherein the Tribunal has based its order on the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court propounded in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and held that where the return of income has been filed in response to notice u/s. 148, the non-issuance of the notice by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(2) of the Act is fatal and accordingly, the subsequent assessment proceedings u/s. 147 stand vitiated and the order so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 are null and void. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), vide para 15 of its

5 ITA No.598/AGR/2025

order held as under : “………………… An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting the return as provided under Section 143(i)(a). The assessing officer has to complete the assessment under Section 143(3) only. In case of default in not filing the return or not complying with the notice under Sections 143(2)/142, the assessing officer is authorized to complete the assessment ex-parte under Section 144. Clause (b) of Section 158 BC by referring to Section 143(2) and (3) would appear to imply that the provisions of Section 143(1) are excluded. But Section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary to check the return, so that where block return conforms to the undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no reason, why the authorities should issue notice under Section 143(2). However, if an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158-BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with…………………………….” 14. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and followed by this Tribunal in Intact Developers (supra), in the instant case, Assessing Officer has omitted to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, which cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable. Therefore, the requirement of issuing notice u/s. 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. We, accordingly, hold that the non-issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(2) of the Act, specifically when the assessee filed return u/s. 139 and pleaded before the Assessing Officer that the same be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, is fatal. Subsequent assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act stand vitiated and the order so passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s. 144 read with section 147 is null and void. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has also committed illegality by confirming the unsustainable assessment order. Aforesaid point is determined in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly. 15. We deem it appropriate to observe that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. Since the assessment order under consideration has been quashed on purely a legal ground raised by assessee, the other grounds related to merits are rendered academic and are not being adjudicated. 16. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed”

6 ITA No.598/AGR/2025

Sd/- sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 22.06.2026 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AGRA