GOURISHANKAR GIRDHARILAL HOHIYA,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, AURANGABAD

ITA 406/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2022AY 2009-102 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 Section 143(2) notice was not issued to the assessee (HUF) but to an individual, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 challenged the assessment order. The key issue was the validity of the Section 143(2) notice issued by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a valid Section 143(2) notice was issued to the assessee, which is a mandatory condition for reassessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon
321 ITR 362 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
623 citing

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

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Kabra

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Hearing: 23.05.2022Pronounced: 26.05.2022

ORDER

PER S. S. GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s order dated 17.02.2020 passed in case no.ABD/CIT(A)-1/199/2011-12 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

I straightway advert to the assessee’s latter substantive ground challenging correctness of the impugned assessment order/reassessment order itself dated 19.12.2011 for want of a valid section 143(2) notice in light of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC).

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

DCIT Circle-3(1)91), Bengaluru vs G Corp Private Limited, Bangalore
Bangalore1 Apr 2026Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon
The Tribunal held that a fresh notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory when an assessment is modified or re-done pursuant to a section 263 order, as these proceedings are a continuation of the original assessment. T...
Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata
Kolkata17 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a valid return (considering the extended period) renders the assessment order invalid and a nullity. The a...
Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-1, Jaipur
Jaipur15 Nov 2021Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. This absence of notice is a fatal defect that invalidates the entire reass...
Cosmat Traders (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata
Kolkata21 Apr 2021Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon
The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order under Section 144 without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction is bad in law. The assessment order was quashed on these gro...
Ramakant Sharma, Jaipur vs ITO, Jaipur
Jaipur2 Dec 2019Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon
The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement in reassessment proceedings. Since no such notice was issued or served, the subsequent assessment proceedings ar...

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →