RAI INNOTECH POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4508/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)2 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 assessment order dated 23.01.2024 was invalid. The Judicial Member, relying on the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC), found that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory compliance. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's own assessment order tabulated the notices issued and did not mention any compliance with section 143(2). Therefore, the failure to issue this mandatory notice vitiated the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment order. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, P C Sales Corporation, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 15.07.2025. This order was passed in proceedings under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessment order under challenge was passed by the Assessing Officer on 23.01.2024. The core of the dispute revolves around the procedural validity of this assessment. The assessee had filed a letter dated 30.04.2022 requesting their return filed on 21.09.2018 be considered as filed in compliance with section 148. The Assessing Officer's assessment order itself tabulated notices issued, and notably, did not mention compliance with section 143(2).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2018-19 is valid, in light of the absence of a notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in furtherance to the assessee's letter dated 30.04.2022 requesting their return filed on 21.09.2018 be treated as filed in compliance with section 148. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the assessment order is invalid due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer. They highlighted that the assessment order itself, in its tabulation of notices, did not record any compliance with section 143(2). Revenue's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 148

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 27.08.2025Pronounced: 27.08.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078496193(1) dated 15.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment herein dated 23.01.2024 itself for want of a notice issued u/s 143(2) in furtherance to the assessee’s letter dated 30.04.2022 making and clear that his return filed on 21.09.2018, be considered as that filed in section 148 compliance. It is made clear that the learned Assessing Officer P C Sales Corporation himself is very fair in having tabulated all the notices issued to the assessee in his assessment order wherein there is not even mention of section 143(2) process’s compliance.

4.

The above being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) to quash impugned assessment itself on account of the learned Assessing Officer’s failure to issue section 143(2) notice which has been held as a mandatory compliance in hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision. Ordered accordingly.

5.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →