DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. M/S. MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 52/RAN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 June 2025Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the order sheet entries confirmed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued for any of the assessment years. Since the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3), the assessment orders were quashed.

What were the facts?

The appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee were against the orders of the learned CIT(A) for assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The assessee's counsel submitted that notices under Section 143(2) were not issued by the Assessing Officer before the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 143(3).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment orders are valid when mandatory notices under Section 143(2) were not issued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 10/06/2025Pronounced: 10/06/2025

Assessee represented by Sri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing 10/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/06/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1.

51 and 52/Ran/2022 are the appeals filed by the revenue and to 31/Ran/2022 are the appeals filed by the assessee the orders of the learned CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna dated 28/02/2022 and 15/03/2022 for the A.Y. 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Smt. Rinku Singh, ld. CIT-DR is represented on behalf of the revenue and Shri Devesh Poddar, ld A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →