M/S. HEAVEN AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3055/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 April 2026AY 2013-20144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the AO to assume jurisdiction for assessment. An assessment framed without this notice is invalid and a nullity in the eyes of the law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147, and a return was filed in response to a notice under Section 148. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed an assessment without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the return was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 is valid if a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is not issued after the assessee filed a return in response to a notice under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, DR
Hearing: 07.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.02.2025 for the AY 2013-14.

2.

The assessee vide ground no.6, has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)], failing to appreciate that the assessment was framed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dehors any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act not being issued by the AO and accordingly, the assessment framed dated 28.09.2021, u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act is invalid, void ab initio and ex-facie, nullity in law.

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) set aside the issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

5.

The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that notice was required to be issued u/s 143(2) of the Act which has not been issued in the impugned case. It was submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act had been issued 4.3.2020 and served upon the assessee and the assessee complied with the said notice by filing a return of income on 08.02.2021. The ld. AR therefore submitted that the assessment framed dehors notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid and may be quashed. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the return of income in compliance to 148 of the Act was filed late and therefore there is no need to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

“5. During the course of hearing on 05.08.2025, the bench directed the assessee to file an affidavit supporting the averment that the AO has not issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which was filed by the assessee during the course of hearing on 09.09.2025 stating therein on oath that no notice was ever issued to the assessee at all by the AO u/s 143(2). The fact was confronted to the DR also who admitted that though the assessee requested the AO by way of letter dated 29.04.2022 that the return filed originally may kindly be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2022. The assessee again requested the AO about the none issuance of notice by the AO vide letter dated 14.03.2023, a copy of which is available at page No. 23 to 38 in which para 8, the assessee again brought to the notice of the AO qua the assessee return of income having been filed u/s 139(1) of the Act which may be taken in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Again the AO failed to take cognizance of the same. We note that in the assessment order in para 1 the AO has categorically mentioned that the assessee has failed to file in ITR in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and further stated that therefore the order is framed u/s 147r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that only because of this misunderstanding the AO had not issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 6. In our opinion, the assessment framed dehors notice u/s 143(2) is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law and therefore cannot be sustained. The decision of the various High Courts and Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal which are squarely applicable to the assessee case are as under:- 1. PCIT-2, Kolkata, Vs. M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Private Limited, ITAT/182/2022 IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022, dated 05.12.2022 2. DCIT Vs. M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 130/Kol/2018 and CO No. 32/Kol/2018, dated 23.10.2019

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 22.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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 →