SAR BUSINESS TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 599/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Raipur21 October 2026AY 2014-1518 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. SAR Business Tradelink Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute revolves around the procedural validity of this assessment. The assessee contended that the assessment was completed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, could not provide any evidence to counter this claim. The appeal was heard on 21.10.2026 and the order was pronounced on the same date.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment completed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and bad in law due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the judicial pronouncements of the Delhi High Court in Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT and its own co-ordinate bench decisions in Bali Nagwanshi Vs. ACIT and Moammed Usman Vs. ITO. The reasoning is that if the Assessing Officer does not accept the return filed by the assessee at its face value, it is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 143(2) to provide an opportunity to the assessee. Failure to do so renders the assessment liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found that the revenue could not provide any evidence to suggest that such a notice was issued. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The appeal was allowed on this legal ground, rendering other grounds academic.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment completed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a sine qua non for the completion of an assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B. Since no such notice was issued in this case, the assessment is invalid. The assessee relied on the decisions in Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT and Bali Nagwanshi Vs. ACIT. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's representative could not refute the factual assertion that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued and did not present any evidence to the contrary. No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 21.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 04.05.2026 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that assessment has been completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961

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 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →