AMBIKA UNIYAL (OLD NAME AMBIKA RAWAT),DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 145/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 139(1)

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, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv
Hearing: 12.01.2026Pronounced: 16.01.2026
1.

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.

2.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →