AMBIKA UNIYAL (OLD NAME AMBIKA RAWAT),DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH
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
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: 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’).
ITA No.145/DDN/2025
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. 3. The Revenue vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that the assessee had not filed any return in pursuance to the Assessing Officer’s section 148 notice warranting any notice under section 143(2) of the Act. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant vehement contention as it emerges from perusal of the assessee’s paper-book at page 9 that she had indeed filed her letter dated 04.01.2022 before the assessing authority seeking to treat the earlier return under section 139(1) as that in response to the reopening herein. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus conclude in light of PCIT Vs. Sh. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del) that even such a letter reiterating the earlier return ought to be followed by a valid section 143(2) notice to hold that the impugned reassessment in
2 | P a g e
ITA No.145/DDN/2025
absence thereof is indeed a non-est one only. The same stands quashed in very terms. All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. 3. This assessee’s appeal allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th January, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16th January, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3 | P a g e
