MITTAL AGRO OIL INDUSTRIES,ROHTAK, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ROHTAK, ROHTAK, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4160/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 December 2025AY 2017-183 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. Failure to issue or serve such a notice vitiates the entire assessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the assessment order, alleging that no notice under section 143(2) was issued or served before its finalization.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the assessment order was valid in the absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 139(1),Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: CA Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 04.12.2025Pronounced: 04.12.2025

Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Mittal Agro Oil Vs. Income Tax Officer, Industries, Ward-3, Bhiwani Road, Meham, Rohtak Rohtak, Haryana PAN :AAUFM2373C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ashok Goyal, CA Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Adv. Department by Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 04.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 04.12.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067099761(1), dated 29.07.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned assessment dated 30th March, 2022 itself as the assessee has alleged that no notice under section 143(2) had either been issued or served before finalizing the same.

3.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had very well responded to the Assessing Officer’s section 148 notice dated 30th March, 2021. And that the assessee had very well filed its letter dated 12th March, 2022 to the fact that its earlier return filed under section 139(1) of the Act be treated as a fresh one for all purposes. There is further no denial to the fact that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion at page 5 rather supports the assessee’s case that although the Assessing Officer had not specifically issued section 143(2) notice, it had already participated on numerous occasions. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned assessing authority had framed its impugned assessment under section 144 of the Act only; and, therefore, section 292BB proviso does not apply in its case.

4.

Faced with this situation, we hereby quote ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) settling the law that such a 2 | P a g e notice under section 143(2) of the Act has to be mandatorily issued and failure thereof indeed vitiates the entire assessments itself. We accordingly quash the impugned assessment dated 30th March, 2022 in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →