M/S. URBAN NIRMAN LLP,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1),, KOLKTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1730/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 December 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\n\nITA No.1730/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\n\nM/s Urban Nirmal LLP\n3rd Floor, Crescent Tower, 229,\nA.J.c. Bose Road, Minto Park,\nKolkata-700020, West Bengal\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nITO, Ward 12(1)\nAaykar Bhawan, P-7,\nChowringhee Square, Kolkata-\n700069, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\n\nPAN No. AAEFU9618G\nAssessee by\n:\nShri Siddarth Jhajharia, AR\nRevenue by\n:\nShri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR\n\nDate of hearing:\n09.10.2025\nDate 5 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 additional ground of appeal, challenging the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, was a purely legal issue with all necessary facts available on record. Therefore, it was admitted for adjudication, citing decisions of the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The Tribunal found that the assessee's letter dated 24.01.2022, requesting the original return to be treated as filed in response to the Section 148 notice, constituted sufficient compliance. It was obligatory and mandatory for the AO to issue a notice under Section 143(2) thereafter. The failure to do so renders the assessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144/144B invalid and a nullity. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd., which held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) pursuant to a notice under Section 148 is fatal to the order of reassessment. Accordingly, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed as invalid and a nullity. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Urban Nirmal LLP, filed its original return of income for AY 2013-14 on 29.09.2013. The case was initially assessed under Section 143(3) on 22.03.2016, with total income assessed at ₹95,95,420/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 31.03.2021. The assessee did not file a fresh return in response to the Section 148 notice. Instead, by a letter dated 24.01.2022, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer (AO) to treat the original return filed on 29.09.2013 as the return in response to the Section 148 notice. The AO, noting the non-filing of a fresh return, proceeded to frame an assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144/144B of the Act on 31.03.2022, making an addition of ₹1,24,00,000/- by way of cash credit. This order was affirmed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC, Delhi). The appeal before the ITAT was filed 61 days beyond the limitation period, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Assessee's contentions: The assessment is bad in law as the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued, rendering the AO without jurisdiction. The assessee argued that it had filed a letter dated 24.01.2022 requesting the original return filed under Section 139(1) to be treated as the return in response to the Section 148 notice, which the AO overlooked. The assessee relied on the decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT, and PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the Departmental Representative (DR), candidly admitted that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after the AO found that the assessee had not filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice. The DR also admitted that the assessee had informed the AO via letter dated 24.01.2022 to treat the original return as filed in response to the Section 148 notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 09.10.2025Pronounced: 11.12.2025

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 24.03.2025 for the AY 2013-14.

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 61 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and

3.

The assessee has raised an additional ground before us which is against the non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act thereby rendering the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144/144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022, as invalid and nullity in the eyes of law.

3.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal challenging the non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal issue qua which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts are required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely coverd by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication.

4.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the original return of income on 29.09.2013, declaring total income of ₹20,56,820/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS for scrutiny and accordingly, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide

4.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is nullity and bad in law as the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. AO had no jurisdiction to frame the said assessment. The ld. AR also controverted the objections/observations of the ld. AO that the assessee has not filed any return of income in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by submitting that the assessee has in fact filed a letter dated 24.01.2022, submitting before the ld. AO to treat the return filed originally u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2013, as return in response

4.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the undisputedly, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the ld. AO after assessee informed the ld. AO vide letter dated 24.01.2022, that return filed originally u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2013, may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and also attached an acknowledgement of the return filed originally. In our opinion, the said communication by the assessee to the ld. AO is a sufficient compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and it is obligatory and mandatory on the part of the ld. AO to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act failing which the assessment framed by the ld. AO is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi)/[2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi)/[2016] 282 CTR 435 (Delhi)[14-10-2015], wherein it is held that the failure by

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →