PRASHANT KUMAR SINGH,INDRA NAGAR COLONY, CHHITTURPUR SIGRA vs. DCIT/ ACIT CEN CIRCLE II, DCIT/ ACIT CEN CIRCLE II

ITA 6550/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2026AY 2022-237 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be validly framed once a search under section 132 has been conducted in the assessee's case and incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee have been seized. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in Montage Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which held that the assessment should have been framed under section 148 with prior approval under section 148B. The reasoning was that section 148, particularly with Explanation 2, provides a special mechanism for assessments following a search, which overrides the general provisions of section 143(3). The Tribunal also noted that the time for issuing a notice under section 143(2) had expired before the search, further invalidating the section 143(3) assessment. The principle applied is that special provisions override general provisions (generalia specialibus non derogant). The impugned assessment framed under section 143(3) was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Prashant Kumar Singh, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23 against the order of the CIT(A), Noida. The appeal arose from assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, initiated by the DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-II, Varanasi. The material fact is that a search was conducted in M/s. Uflex-Montage Group on 21.02.2023, which led to the seizure of documents pertaining to the assessee. The assessment order was framed by the Assessing Officer on 07.03.2024. The assessee contended that the assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid due to the preceding search action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be validly framed when a search under section 132 of the Act has been conducted in the assessee's case, and incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were seized. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that following a search under section 132, the assessment should have been framed under section 148 with prior approval under section 148B of the Act, citing the decision in Montage Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT. They contended that a regular assessment under section 143(3) is not permissible in such circumstances, as the special procedure for search-based assessments should be followed. They also argued that the time for issuing a notice under section 143(2) had expired before the search was conducted. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the impugned assessment, arguing that the Assessing Officer had rightly finalized it under normal provisions as the issue was pending before him at the time of the search. They contended that section 148B applies only to 're-assessment' and not 'regular assessments', and that the AO's approval fulfilled supervisory requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 132,Section 148,Section 148B,Section 143(2),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Vir Sain Aggarwal, Adv
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 04.08.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2022-23, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Noida’s order dated 07.01.2026 passed in case no. CIT(Appeals), Noida-3/10046/2021-22, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 72 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee’s first and forem

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →