COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI X vs. SUNITA SAXENA

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

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

ITA - 862 / 2008HC Delhi15 April 200931 pages

For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that where the Assessing Officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed income filed by the assessee, the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a prerequisite for framing the block assessment order under Chapter XIV-B. The Court reasoned that while Section 158BC(b) incorporates Section 143(2) 'so far as may be', this expression is not meant to render the notice directory. If the Assessing Officer does not accept the return, further inquiry is necessary, which mandates following the procedure of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and produce material. Failure to issue such a notice renders the assessment order invalid, not merely irregular. The Court upheld the ITAT's decisions in favour of the assessees. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

This judgment consolidates multiple appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against various assessees, including Pawan Gupta, Tulika Mishra, Naresh Kumar Arora, Atul Glass Industries Ltd., Kamal Gupta, Sunita Saxena, Anand Saxena, Amar Gupta, Ashok Khetrapal, Prashant Kumar Dash, Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Veenu Jewellers (India), Govind Ram Gupta, and Padam Chand Gupta. The appeals challenge common orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning block assessment periods, notably from 01.04.1986 to 10.10.1996 in the case of Pawan Gupta. The core issue in these appeals revolves around the validity of block assessment orders passed under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically whether a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory prerequisite.

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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessees argued that the Assessing Officer erred in passing block assessment orders under Section 158BC without serving any notice under Section 143(2). They contended that such assessments are without jurisdiction, violate principles of natural justice, and are therefore null and void ab initio. They relied on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the scheme of block assessments under Chapter XIV-B differs from regular assessments under Chapter XIV, and the restriction of requiring a notice under Section 143(2) for regular assessments under Section 143(3) is not applicable to block assessments. They submitted that a procedural fault does not vitiate the assessment.

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:9738-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 →