GRIM TECH PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT

ITA 968/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 October 2026AY 2012-1316 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Grim Tech Projects India Private Limited, filed its original return for Assessment Year 2012-13 on September 30, 2012. The Assessing Officer (AO) re-opened the case under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 on March 31, 2019. The assessee filed a revised return on October 21, 2019. The AO completed the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 by an order dated December 30, 2019, making an addition of Rs. 5,20,00,000/- under Section 68, thereby determining the total income at Rs. 8,41,20,150/-. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, remanded the matter back to the AO. The assessee is aggrieved by this remand order and has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the AO under Section 144 read with Section 147 without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) cannot be sustained in law, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal noted that the AO, in the assessment order, had stated that the return filed by the assessee was invalid as it was filed after the due date mentioned in the notice under Section 148. However, the AO subsequently accepted and acted upon this belatedly filed return by computing the total income based on it. The Tribunal found that when the AO accepts and acts upon a return filed by the assessee, it is obligatory for the AO to issue a notice under Section 143(2) for making an assessment under Section 143(3) or 144. The Tribunal distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on the Gauhati High Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shankar Lall Goenka, stating that the facts in that case were materially different and did not deal with the controversy of the mandatory requirement of issuing a Section 143(2) notice after a return is filed in response to a Section 148 notice. The Tribunal, following the principle that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, the one favoring the assessee should be adopted, concluded that the assessment order was liable to be quashed on this jurisdictional ground. Consequently, the remaining grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and not requiring adjudication. The assessment order dated December 30, 2019, was quashed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144 read with Section 147 is invalid and void ab initio due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) to the assessee before making the assessment? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the AO passed the assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147 without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). This omission, according to the assessee, renders the assessment order without jurisdiction, illegal, and liable to be quashed. The assessee further contends that even if the return was filed belatedly, the AO accepted and acted upon it, making the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice obligatory for assessment under Section 143(3) or 144. The assessee relies on decisions from ITAT Hyderabad (Nisha Kapistalamchetlur), Delhi High Court (Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd., Shaily Juneja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax), and ITAT Bangalore (Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd.). Revenue's Contention: The revenue contends that since the assessee filed its return belatedly after the expiry of the time specified in the notice under Section 148, the return filed was invalid. Therefore, the AO was justified in framing the assessment under Section 144 without issuing a notice under Section 143(2). The revenue relies on the categorical finding of the AO in the assessment order and places reliance on the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shankar Lall Goenka.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 139,Section 143(1),Section 142(1),Section 131,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, Advocate and Shri Rahul Satija, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri J.K. Chandnani, CIT-DR
Hearing: 13.07.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 15.07.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of order of re-assessment dated 30.12.2019 passed by learned ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), Surat [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal. Grim Tech Projects India Private Limited

2.

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-company filed origi

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 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →