VINOD KUMAR KASTURCHAND GOLECHHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a mandatory requirement for reassessment proceedings after the filing of a return in response to a notice under section 148. The non-issuance of such a notice, as in this case, is not a mere procedural irregularity but a fatal defect that vitiates the reassessment order.
What were the facts?
The assessee is in the business of import, export, and trading of diamonds. The assessments for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 were reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure action in a related group case. The reopening was based on information suggesting the assessee availed accommodation/hawala entries from certain entities.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer are valid without issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the assessee filed a return in response to a notice under section 148.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 151(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO1,349 citing259 ITR 90 · 2003 · SC · Read judgment
- ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon623 citing321 ITR 362 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd.47 citing64 Taxmann.com 220 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Marck Biosciences Ltd.20 citing106 Taxmann.com 399 · 2019 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SMT RENU JAUHRI
Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeals filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 22.03.2024 passed separately for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Brief facts of the case are as under:
ITA No.1966 & 1967/MUM/2024 Vinod Kumar Kasturchand Golechha; A. Y.2010-11 & 2009-10
The assessee is engaged in the business of import, export and trading of cut and polished, and rough diamonds. The original return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 was filed by the assessee on 28.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.2,70,210/- and return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 14.10.2010 decl
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Vinod Kumar Kasturchand Golechha, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai17 Dec 2024N/A
Also relies on PCIT v. Marck Biosciences Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were invalid and should be quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the assessee filed its r...
- Arun Kumar Maurya, Lucknow vs ITO-2(1), LucknowLucknow30 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement before passing an assessment order, especially when a return has been filed. Failure to issue this notice...
- Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 2(1), KolkataKolkata17 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a valid return (considering the extended period) renders the assessment order invalid and a nullity. The a...
- Madhuben Narottambhai Patel, Na vs Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, NavsariSurat28 Feb 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Marck Biosciences Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was not sustainable due to the absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Relying on various judicial pronouncem...
- Innovative Welfare and Educational Society… vs ADIT (E), Trust Circle, New DelhiDelhi29 Apr 2022Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Marck Biosciences Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within the statutory period, rendering the assessment order null and void. Therefore, the assessment was annulled.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
