COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRASHANT KUMAR DASH

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 158BC, Section 158BB

ITA - 1202 / 2008HC Delhi15 April 200931 pages

For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a prerequisite for framing a block assessment order under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the Assessing Officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed income filed by the assessee. The Court reasoned that while Section 158BC(b) incorporates provisions of Section 143(2) 'so far as may be', this qualification applies to situations where the Assessing Officer accepts the return as filed. If the Assessing Officer intends to deviate from the return, an inquiry is necessitated, which requires adherence to Section 143(2) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Failure to issue such a notice in such circumstances renders the assessment order invalid, not merely irregular. The Court affirmed the Gauhati High Court's view in Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT, emphasizing that Section 143(2) is mandatory when an inquiry is undertaken. Consequently, assessment orders passed without complying with Section 143(2) when an inquiry is made are invalid. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns a batch of appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeals challenge the Tribunal's decisions which, in turn, had upheld the contentions of various assessees, including Pawan Gupta, Tulika Mishra, and others. The core issue revolves around block assessment orders passed under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the block assessment period 01.04.1986 to 10.10.1996 in the lead case. The assessees argued that the block assessment orders were invalid because the Assessing Officer had failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act before passing the assessment order, which they contended violated principles of natural justice and jurisdictional requirements.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance/service of a notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period is a prerequisite for framing a block assessment order under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly when the Assessing Officer does not accept the return filed in response to a notice under Section 158BC? Assessee's Contentions: - The Assessing Officer erred in passing the block assessment order under Section 158BC without serving a notice under Section 143(2). - The block assessment made without a Section 143(2) notice is without jurisdiction and should be quashed. - The completion of block assessment without allowing an opportunity under Section 143(2) violates principles of natural justice and is void ab initio. - Relied on the Gauhati High Court decision in Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT (289 ITR 28). Revenue's Contentions: - The scheme of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B is different from regular assessment under Chapter XIV, and the restriction of requiring a Section 143(2) notice for regular assessment does not apply to block assessment. - The words 'so far as may be' in Section 158BC(b) make the application of Section 143(2) directory, not mandatory, depending on the Assessing Officer's actions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 158BC,Section 158BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2009:DHC:9848-DB

More judgments on Section 142(1)

Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Raipur
ITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, Bheror
ITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Morbi
ITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot
ITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →