Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 challenged a reassessment order. The core issue was the non-issuance of a Section 143(2) notice after the assessee filed a letter treating her original Section 139(1) return as a response to the Section 148 notice.
Held
The tribunal held that since the assessee had filed a letter treating her earlier return as a response to the reopening notice, a Section 143(2) notice was mandatory. The absence of such a notice rendered the reassessment proceedings non-est and invalid.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether a Section 143(2) notice is mandatory when an assessee, in response to a Section 148 notice, files a letter requesting to treat an already filed Section 139(1) return as the return in response to the reopening.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, 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/250/2025-26/1077118505(1), dated 17.06.2025, involving proceedings under sections 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises her first and foremost substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned reassessment as upheld in the lower appellate discussion for the precise reason that section 143(2) notice had not been issued to her.