SITANSHU GUPTA,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 67/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 April 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was a legal requirement and its non-issuance was a fatal defect. Section 292BB of the Act does not protect the AO when a notice is never issued, only if there is a defect in its service.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened and an addition of Rs. 22,33,33,376/- was made by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, raising several grounds.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is valid when a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 148,Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 “DB” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate
Hearing: 15.04.2026

Year: 2012-13 SITANSHU GUPTA, INCOME TAX OFFICER, बिधम 100/100, Block 2, Ward 2(4), DEHRADUN, Vs. Lunia Mohalla, DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND. UTTRAKHAND 248001. PAN No.BDMPS2841B अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR 06.04.2026 सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date of hearing: 15.04.2026 उद्घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 30.12.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the assessee’s case was reopened for reassessment on the basis of information received from DDIT-Investigation-1, Faridabad. Thereafter, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.223,33,376/-.

1.1 Aggrieved with this action, the assesse approached the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed on the basis of detailed findings given in the impugned order. 1 1.2 Further aggrieved, the assesse has approached the ITAT with nine grounds out of which the Ld. AR stated that ground no.4 pertaining to the non-issuance of a statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act needed to be decided before proceeding any further in the matter.

2.

Before us, the Ld. AR placed on record the Form 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in which the ground no. 1.4 was specifically on the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act not being issued by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR read out from the impugned order at pages 6 & 7 whereby the absence of any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A) and decided against the assesse following the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. It is recorded in the impugned order that the assessee never raised any objection before the Ld. AO and hence he would be debarred from raising any objection at appellate stage on that issue.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the provisions of section 292BB of the Act would protect the Ld. AO when it came to the matter of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

3.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. For the sake of capturing the facts it needs to be mentioned that a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2019 and the assessee field a return of income on 14.05.2019. Thus, there was a legal requirement to issue a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as has been held in the case of Hotel Blue Moon reported in 188 Taxman 113 (SC) and the case of Laxman Das Khandelwal reported in 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC). The argument of the Ld. DR that the provisions of section 292BB of the Act would protect the Ld. AO, cannot cure this fatal defect since 292BB would protect the AO only in case of any defect in the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. There would be no protection in case a notice was never issued by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, we allow ground no.4 of the assessee and quash the resultant assessment order.

4.

In the result, this appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.04.2026

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →