JAHANGIR SYED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 646/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 June 2025AY 2012-1325 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee sold immovable properties for a consideration of Rs. 9,45,000/- against an SRO Fair Market Value of Rs. 78,93,000/-. Initially, no return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed. Subsequently, in response to a Section 148 notice, the assessee filed a belated return on 11.12.2019, declaring only 'Other sources' income and not 'Capital Gains', citing ongoing property litigation. The A.O. rejected the litigation claim, added Rs. 77.93 lacs as Long Term Capital Gains, and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without issuing a Section 143(2) notice.

Held

The Tribunal held that the belated return filed by the assessee in response to the Section 148 notice was a valid return of income, notwithstanding the delay. The A.O. erred in treating this return as invalid and dispensing with the mandatory requirement of issuing a Section 143(2) notice before framing the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the complete absence of a Section 143(2) notice renders the assessment void for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, and Section 292BB does not cure this fundamental defect.

Key Issues

Whether an assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is sustainable in the absence of a mandatory Section 143(2) notice, particularly when a belated return was filed in response to a Section 148 notice.

Sections Cited

143(3), 147, 148, 143(2), 139, 234A, 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Assessee Advocate. Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.AR Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 25.06.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 30.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07.11.2023, 2 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 31.12.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating ground nos. 3 to 8 taken before him on the very issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.12.2019 is invalid and is without jurisdiction as no statutory notice u/s 143(2) had been issued.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld. AO erred in issuing the notice u/s 142(1)(i) of the Act dt. 06.12.2019 for calling for return of income beyond the time limit of six years and completing the scrutiny assessment on the basis of the said notice, which is invalid and is without jurisdiction.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dt. 31-12-2019 is invalid ab initio on the ground that no notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued as seen from the very assessment order.