Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the assessment. The core issue was that the assessment was completed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite the CIT(A) acknowledging this as a procedural lapse, they upheld the assessment order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is an incurable defect that makes the assessment invalid. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal was cited, emphasizing that Section 292BB of the Act does not cure the complete absence of a notice, only infirmities in its service.
Key Issues
Whether an assessment order passed without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid?
Sections Cited
143(2), 148, 292BB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y.2019-20) Abishek Chandok, Q5/2 First Floor, DLF City Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: APJPC-1686-E बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(1), Civic Centre Road, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri H.C Parasher & Ms. Hiteshi Parasher, Advocates प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 18.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2019-20.
The short issue for consideration in the present appeal is validity of the assessment order passed without issuance of mandatory notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Shri H.C Parasher, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) has completed the assessment without issuance of notice
u/s.143(2) of the Act. The ld. Counsel submits that the reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 06.04.2023. In reply to the said notice the assessee vide communication dated 04.05.2023 requested the AO to treat return of income filed originally on 31.10.2019 as return of income in response to said notice. Thereafter, without issuing any notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, the AO completed the assessment vide order dated 27.02.2025 making addition of Rs.19,62,940/-. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). Through the CIT(A) in the impugned order (page 11) observes that non issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is a serious procedural lapse, still the CIT(A) upholds validity of the assessment order.
Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently defended validity of assessment order. The ld. DR submitted that the AO had issued various notices to the assessee but the assessee chooses not to reply to any of the said notices. Even, the show cause notice dated 07.02.2025 was issued but the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue for consideration in the present appeal is: Whether the assessment proceedings without issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act are valid?
As is evident from the impugned order, no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. The CIT(A) observes that non issuance of notice u/s.143(2) is serious lapse. However, the First Appellate Authority overrules the objections raised by the assessee stating that the assessee did not respond to video conferencing facility provided to the assessee to make submissions. Issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is a statutory requirement.
Non issuance of such notice is an incurable defect and makes the assessment invalid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal reported as 417 ITR 325 has held that issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is a mandatory requirement. For section 292BB of the Act to apply the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act must have emanated from the Department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the section seeks to cure. The provisions of section 292BB of the Act does not intend to cure complete absence of notice itself.
In the instant case, there is complete absence of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. This makes the assessment invalid and vitiates the subsequent proceedings.
In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 15th day of December, 2025.