Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2013-2014. The assessee's primary contention was that the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued. The Revenue, however, claimed that the notice was issued.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 143(2) was indeed not issued, as evidenced by the portal screenshot. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s Sudarshan Paper and Board Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that the absence of this statutory notice renders the assessment invalid.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment is valid when the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act has not been issued?
Sections Cited
143(2), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dynamo Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO Ward-1(1), Kolkata 27, Narayani, 2nd Floor, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 PAN No. :AADCD 1630 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-2014.
It was submitted by theLd.AR that the notice required to be issued u/s.143(2) of the Act has not been issued in the impugned case. It was submission that the notice u/s.148 of the Act had been issued on the assessee on 18/03/2020. The assessee had filed its return of income in response to the said notice on 10/02/2021. The Ld. AR placed before me that the copy of the screenshot of the income tax portal in the case of the assessee which reads as follows:-
It was submission that no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has been issued in assessee. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cas of Sudharsan paper and boat Pvt.Ltd in ITAT 182/2022 dated
3. It was the submission that no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has been issued in the case of the assessee. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Private Limited, passed in ITAT/182/2022 IA No.GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022, dated 05.12.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court page 2 & 3 has held as follows :- The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), quashing the order of the Assessing Officer under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non- issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, without appreciating the facts that assessee did not comply with the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not required in assessee’s case ? On perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal we find the legal issue involved in the instant case has been rightly dealt with by the learned Tribunal affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and quashing the reassessment proceeding for want of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In this regard usual reference may be made to the decision of the High Court of Madras in M/s. Sapthagiri Finance & Investments -vs- The Income Tax Officer TC(A) No. 159 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012. In the said decision after taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CITU. Hotel Blue Moon: [2010] 321 ITR 362(SC) the reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) and Tiwari Kanhaiya Lal -vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax 154 ITR 109 (Raj). In the light of the above, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is legal and valid and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue.
It was submission that as statutory notice required on 143(2) of the Act has not been issued. The impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed.
The Ld. Sr.DR submitted that the assessment order specifies that the statutory notice has been issued. He supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). It was submission that if required details may be called for from the AO.
I have considered the rival submission. A perusal of the facts in the present clearly shows that this is a faceless assessment, notices are to be