HOPEWIN ADMARK & CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no evidence that the mandatory Section 143(2) notice was issued for AY 2002-03, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order framed under Section 147/143(3) and the consequential penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s orders related to quantum assessment for AY 2002-03 and a consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The core contention was that the Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act during the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148.
What were the issues?
The key issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings and the resulting assessment order without the mandatory issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(2),Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI ]
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 16/03/2012 on the quantum and order dated 26/12/2018 on the penalty issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). The Assessee has raised the additional grounds of appeal in the quantum appeal which reads as under: -
“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred by framing the assessment without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The re-assessment is illegal and without jurisdictional and is liable to be quashed.” 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued during the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, submitted that mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act was not followed.
Hence, initiation of reassessment proceedings and the assessment order are void ab initio. The Ld. Counsel has relied on several judicial precedents to support his arguments.
Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the notice u/s 143(3) of the Act has been duly issued on the Assessee and Assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings, therefore, relying on the orders of the lower authorities sought for dismissal of the appeal.
We have heard the parties and perused the material on record.
It is the specific contention of the Ld. AR that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued to the Assessee. The Ld. Counsel has also produced the order sheet and also the copy of the speed post booking list. On going through the order sheet, it is found that the Assessing Officer has mentioned the service of notice u/s 148 of the Act through speed post. But, nowhere in the order sheet it is mentioned that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued for the year under consideration through speed. It is found that a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been mentioned to have been issued to the Assessee for the AY 2007-08 and not for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2002-03. In the absence of any document produced by the Department to prove that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued for AY 2002-03, we are compel to form an opinion that no notice u/s 143(2) has been issued to the Assessee for the year under consideration and without issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the impugned assessment order has been framed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessment order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we allow additional grounds of appeal of the Assessee and quash the assessment order dated 23/12/2019 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. As we have allowed the additional grounds and quashed the assessment order, other grounds of appeal of the Assessee on merits requires no adjudication. is partly allowed.
6. Since we have allowed the quantum appeal in by setting aside the assessment order, the order of penalty passed consequent to the assessment order is also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the order of penalty passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the order of penalty are set aside.
In the result, appeal in is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on: 09 /04/2025
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
