Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order quashing a reassessment order. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading of smokeless coal/coke and earning interest income, had substantial cash deposits in its bank accounts withdrawn via RTGS/NEFT. A difference was noted between disclosed turnover and bank credits, leading the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that two parallel reassessment proceedings were initiated for the same assessment year without concluding the first one, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the reassessment order was passed without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act for the proceedings initiated by the second notice. The absence of such a notice is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment order is liable to be quashed due to the initiation of parallel reassessment proceedings and the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Sections Cited
148, 143(3), 142(1), 273B, 270A, 270AA, 147, 144B, 69A, 143(2), 292B, 139
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
order
: January 06, 2026 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 15.01.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of special smokeless coal/coke. The assessee also derives income by way of interest on bank deposits. As per information available with the Income-tax Department, it was noticed that the assessee’s bank accounts reflected substantial cash deposits, which were allegedly withdrawn immediately through RTGS/NEFT transactions. It was further observed that there existed a difference between the turnover disclosed by the assessee in the return of income and the total credits appearing in the bank accounts. On the basis of the above information, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd Act dated 16.03.2021. Subsequently, without concluding or formally dropping the earlier reassessment proceedings, the AO issued another notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 for the same assessment year and on identical reasons, thereby initiating parallel reassessment proceedings. In response to the notices issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 18.08.2021, declaring total income of ₹4,86,595/-. The filing of return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act has been duly acknowledged by the AO in the assessment records. Prior to the reassessment, the assessee had filed its return of income under section 139 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by order dated 14.10.2015, determining total income at ₹6,84,600/-. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act on 30.06.2021 and again on 22.02.2022, calling upon the assessee to furnish various details. According to the AO, the assessee did not comply with the notices and neither furnished the requisite information nor sought adjournment. On account of alleged non- compliance, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings after issuing notice under section 273B of the Act, proposing levy of penalty under section 270A/270AA of the Act. The assessee raised objections against the reopening of the assessment proceedings vide objections dated 15.02.2022, which were duly replied to on 22.02.2022. The assessee also requested reasonable opportunity to furnish details, contending that the notices were issued at very short intervals. The AO, however, proceeded to complete the reassessment based on the material available on record and passed the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, making an addition of ₹13,64,83,677/- under section 69A of the Act, treating the same as unexplained money. A perusal of the assessment records reveals that two notices under section 148 of the Act dated 16.03.2021 and Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd 31.03.2021 were issued for the same assessment year. In the proceedings initiated pursuant to notice dated 16.03.2021, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.01.2022 was issued. However, no assessment order was passed in the proceedings arising from the notice dated 16.03.2021, nor were such proceedings formally dropped or closed. The reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 was passed pursuant to the second notice dated 31.03.2021. In the proceedings initiated pursuant to notice dated 31.03.2021, no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued at any stage, and even the assessment order is silent on this mandatory requirement. The departmental records and the electronic portal clearly indicate that the reassessment proceedings initiated by notice dated 16.03.2021 continued to remain open.
Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), primarily challenging the validity of the reassessment on jurisdictional and legal grounds, contending that parallel reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act cannot be initiated for the same assessment year without concluding the earlier proceedings. The reassessment order was passed without issuance of mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act in respect of the proceedings initiated by notice dated 31.03.2021. Issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement, and its absence renders the assessment void ab initio. Such a defect is not curable under section 292B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), after examining the submissions of the assessee and the assessment records, recorded detailed findings from para 7.1 onwards of the appellate order and held that the initiation of a second reassessment proceeding without concluding the first one clearly demonstrates non-application of mind. The reassessment order was passed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act in the relevant proceedings. Participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings does not cure a jurisdictional defect relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd v. Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362) and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (417 ITR 325), the ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order. The ld. counsel has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is his order has discussed the facts while allowing the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:
Dissatisfied with the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us contending that notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.01.2022 was issued. The assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment order on technical grounds. The learned Departmental Representative supported the assessment order and submitted that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in one of the proceedings is sufficient compliance.
The learned counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.01.2022 pertains only to proceedings initiated by notice dated 16.03.2021 whereas, the assessment order has been passed pursuant to notice dated 31.03.2021, in respect of which no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. Therefore, two parallel reassessment proceedings are impermissible in law.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that two notices under section 148 of the Act dated 16.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 were issued for the same assessment year. It is further undisputed fact that notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued only in the proceedings arising from notice dated 16.03.2021. No assessment order was passed pursuant to the said notice. The reassessment order dated 30.03.2 Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd was passed pursuant to notice dated 31.03.2021, without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362) has categorically held that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory and not a mere procedural requirement. Further, in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (417 ITR 325), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that absence of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured by invoking section 292B of the Act. We also agree with the ld. CIT(A) that parallel reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated without concluding the earlier proceedings, and the Department cannot subsequently contend that the earlier proceedings were dropped when the records show otherwise. In view of the above facts and the settled legal position, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the reassessment order, having been passed without issuance of mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act is void ab initio. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the order of the ld. CIT(A) is sustained.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 6th January, 2026.