INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. SHRI RAM UDYOG, DELHI

Assessee by Shri Shantanu Verma, Adv. Department by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

1. The CIT (A) has erred in low and facts by not considering the fact that the assessee has not filed ITR in accordance with section 139 of the Act or in response to notice w/s 142(1) of the Art, which is mandatory requirement for issued of notice w's 143(2) of the Act.

2. The CTT (A) has erred in law and facts by not considering the fact that the A. O has declared the ITR dated 09.06.2019 as invalid and there is no requirement of issue of notice w/s 143(2) of the Act in such case. 3.The CIT(A) bas erred in law and facts by not considering the fact that assessee has failed to fulfil its onus to substantiate the credits in its bank account. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not considering the fact that whether the debit entries in its bank account are related/connected to credit of funds.

Del/2024 ITO vs. Shri Ram Udyog 5. The CIT (A) has erred in low and facts by not considering the fact that the assessee has not furnished any evidence/documents in support of debit entriesin its bank account whether the same are related to expenditure assets. 6. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of appeal.”

5. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the orders of lower authorities, we find that before the Assessing Officer though the assessee had filed the return of income on 09.06.2019 declaring total income at Rs.28,200/-, however, the said return was neither filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 139 of the Act nor within the extended time period allowed in the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The AO in para No.2 of the order has treated the this return of income filed by the assessee as invalid return which fact is further stated in para 3 of the order and was duly intimated to the assessee along with subsequent notice issued. Further no cognizance of the said return was taken by the AO who even had not considered the income declared in the return in the final computation of income. Therefore, it cannot be said that the return of income filed by the assessee is a valid return, and the AO should have issued the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act to assume the jurisdiction to assess the income of the assessee.

6. Once the return filed by the assess is held as nonest as the same was not filed in accordance with law, its cognizance could not be taken and the AO has ignored the said return by holding the same as invalid. AS observed above, while computing the total income of the assessee, the AO has taken income as per return of income at Nil, thereafter, made the additions. This clearly shows that the return of income filed by the assessee belatedly is not accepted by the Department and, therefore, the question of issue of notice u/s 143(2) to assume jurisdiction does not arise. In view of these facts and the circumstances of the case, we are not in agreement with the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) that in the instant case once the return of income was Del/2024 ITO vs. Shri Ram Udyog filed by the assessee, notice u/s 143(2) being mandatory requirement of should be issued. The judgments relied upon the CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee are having different facts wherein the returns filed were held as invalid returns as has been held in the instant case. Therefore, the ratio laid down in these cases are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.