INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PALANPUR vs. SIDDHARTH SATISHBHAI JOSHI, GUJARAT
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the facts of the case, rendering the reassessment order void ab initio. The fact that the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) and not 143(1) as claimed by the AO was crucial in this determination.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) which quashed an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act. The basis for quashing was the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2), despite the assessee not filing a return within the prescribed time in response to a notice under Section 148. The Revenue also challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,19,17,017/- made by the AO for unexplained investment in land.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment order is valid when the AO failed to apply his mind to the facts, and whether the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) vitiates the proceedings initiated under Section 147.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 148,Section 143(1),Section 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 08.05.2024, under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:-
“(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in quashing the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of IT Act on the basis of non- issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, without appreciating the facts that the assessee has not filed return of income within prescribed time limit in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act.
(b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,19,17,017/- made by AO on account of unexplained investment in land.” ITO Vs. Siddharth Satishbhai Joshi Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2–
The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are reproduced below:
“…….
4. Basis of reason to believe: As discussed above the assessee has disclosed only a meager income in the return and also made huge cash deposit in the bank as discussed above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the extent of on money and sales consideration paid i.e. Rs.2,19,17,017/- 5. As per above discussion, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 and intend to reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section.
In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration but no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the act was made and the return of income was only processed u/s 143(1) of the act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income tax as per provisions of section 151 of the Act.”
The Assessing Officer held that the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, whereas the facts on record reveal that the return was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessment order dated 14.12.2016 had been passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, and the Ld. DR could not dispute this fact on record. ITO Vs. Siddharth Satishbhai Joshi Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3– Thus, it is evident from the record that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the facts of the case, which renders the reassessment order void and ab initio. Accordingly, the reassessment order is hereby quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
