ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Anil Nachrani V The Principal Commissioner of Income House No. 53, Anand Nagar, s Tax, (Central), Aayakar Bhawan, Near Marine Drive, 48, Arera Hills, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Bhopal- (M.P.) 492011 PAN: ABIPN5928M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent) . . िनधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 26.09.2023 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of : 22.11.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

The present appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal at Jaba for the assessment year 2012-13 dated 18.02.2022, arose from the order of Income Tax Officer-3(2), Raipur under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.12.2019.

2. The assessee has raised total 11 grounds of appeal pertaining to different aspects of the same controversy, challenging the jurisdiction u/s 263 assumed by the Ld. PCIT. The grounds raised are culled out are as under:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated 18.02.2022 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as "PCIT (Central), Bhopal”) setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 30.12.2019, is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad-in-law and void ab initio on account of several reasons, more particularly, owing to the reason that the jurisdiction u/s 263 has been assumed in respect of non-Est proceedings which is vitiated by non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal has erred in holding that the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Learned A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and thereby setting aside the same.

3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the order passed by the Learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue and hence the revision of the same by the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous and bad-in-law.

4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O had not made only adequate inquires, but had also undertaken necessary verification based on the details/documents sought from the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, hence, the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed by learned AO is neither 'erroneous' nor 'prejudicial' to the Interest of the Revenue.

5. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal has erred in concluding that the order passed by the learned AO, accepting the submissions of the assessee, is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue stating that the Learned AO should have applied his proper mind and analytical ability.

6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessment had been framed after due application of mind and thorough Investigation of the issues, on which the PCIT (Central), Bhopal has set aside the assessment inasmuch as the same have been enquired into and dealt in by the Learned AO.

7. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal the order passed by the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal u/s 263 is bad-in- law as the action u/s 263 has been taken on the basis of audit objection which is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (2007) 207 CTR (P&H) 178: (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H).

8. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal has grossly erred in invoking the Explanation 2 to Section 263, since the Learned AO has applied his mind fully to the issues taken by the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal u/s 263(1).

9. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the order passed by the PCIT (Central), Bhopal directing the Learned A.O to reframe the assessment de-novo needs to be struck down.

10. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, for these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. PCIT

(Central), Bhopal may kindly be quashed, and the appeal may kindly be allowed.

11. The appellant craves leaves to add or amend/ alter/ withdraw any or all above grounds of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

Please refer to the above.

Assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 201213 was passed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.12.2019. Assessment records were called from the Assessing Officer & examined. Certain issues emerged from the examination of the assessment records which are discussed herein:

Examination of the records revealed that credible information about advance of cash loan and interest earned thereon by Shri Anil Nachrani to various persons was found in the search of Nachrani Group of cases conducted on 11.09.2018. This information was passed on by the DDIT (Inv.)-l, Raipur to the Assessing Officer vide letter DDIT /lnv-1/RPR/2018- 19/363 dated 04.03.2019. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of IT Act on the basis of information so received after obtaining prior approval of Pr. CIT, Raipur. An examination of assessment record also revealed that the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of this information and has accepted your submission made in this regard without appreciating the information passed on the basis of the seized material and other evidence on record, neither he made any further verification nor made enquiry to ascertain the true facts. In your reply, you have simply stated that, in the seized records, the name of the assessee has not been mentioned and also that the loose papers are dummy account statements and that the amounts mentioned in "thousands cannot be read to be in Lakhs"'. You have also attached the affidavit of your accountant Mr Sekh Mojahidul Islam which was accepted by the AO without making any enquiry or independent verification. In accepting your explanation, the AO was entirely misled by your representation made in this regard. He did not note that these documents were found and seized from your assessee premises during search and seizure operation. The documents contained detailed account of cash loan given on particular dates, Interest earned thereon as well as Interest received. The account also showed whether it is journal entry received as well as closing balance. Further the promissory notes were also found and seized, duly signed by the person who has taken the loan. Further, the fact that loan was given in lakhs was also ascertainable from the promissory notes when the same was compared with account statements. The AO has not at all analysed and made due verification/enquiry of these documents and simply accepted your self-cited recitals in the form of your submission. As regards, the affidavit submitted by your accountant, the same was also accepted by the AO without realising that affidavit is only a self-citing recital carrying no evidentiary value Unless it is cross examined as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra & Other civil appeal no. 7728 of 2012 (reported in AIR 2013 SC/58/(2013)/SCC/465.

In view of the above discussion, it becomes prima facie clear that the AO has passed the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 without making any enquiry or verification which he should have been made during the assessment proceedings making the assessment order prima facie erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the Interest of revenue within meaning of explanation 2(a) of section 263(1) of IT Act. Accordingly, you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard as per section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to present yourself in person or through an authorized representative or file submission through online mode on 24.01.2022 at 11:30 A.M. to explain your case before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal. In case, no reply is received by stipulated date, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and a decision will be taken on the basis of records available in this office.

5. In response to aforesaid notice u/s 263(1), the authorized representative of the assessee appeared on 03.02.2002 before the Ld. PCIT, has submitted a response on behalf of the assessee. Assessee’s submissions were considered by the Ld. PCIT, however, have not accepted the contentions of the assessee observing that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2019, therefore, the return which was required to be filed on or before 30.04.2019, was filed belatedly on 01.06.2019, there is no provision in the Act to allow belated filing of return u/s 148. Thus, the return filed on 01.06.2019 is held as non-Est. Accordingly, it was the perception of Ld PCIT that, there is no requirement of issuing u/s 143(2) in non-Est return. It is also mentioned that the AO did not declare the return as non-Est in so many words, yet by not issuing a notice u/s 143(2), he impliedly held the return as non-Est, further, it was recorded that the assessment should have been framed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act. With such observations, Ld. PCIT has concluded that the Assessing Officer did not conducted any enquiry or verification with proper application of mind which he should have made before completing assessment as required from him, after recording satisfaction the order of Ld AO was erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, Ld. PCIT set aside the order of Assessing Officer with the directions to frame the assessment de-novo after conducting proper enquiries in the light of his directions/ discussions, after providing reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee.

7. At the very interception of the hearing Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has submitted a written synopsis in support of contentions of the assessee the same as extracted as under:

SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE

Appellant : Shri Anil Nachrani Respondent : The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ITA No. : 47/RPR/2022 A.Y. : 2012-13 Fixed on : 21.09.23 (1) The return of income u/s 139 was filed on 30.03.2013, copy of ROI along with Computation of Total Income is placed on Page No 1 to 4 of the Paper Book. (2) The Learned A.O issued notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2019, copy of notice u/s 148 is placed on Page No 5 of the Paper Book. The assessee duly filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 electronically on 01.06.2019, copy of ITR acknowledgement along with Computation of Total Income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 is placed on Page No 6 to 9 of the Paper Book. The Learned A.O did not issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as mandated u/s 143.

(3) The Learned A.O passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 30.12.2019, copy of the assessment order passed by the Learned A.O is placed on Page No 10 to 15 of the Paper Book.

(4) Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 only which is self-evident from the following: -

Following Sl. Page No. of Particulars No. Paper Book- 2 1. Copy of order u/s 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 178- 179 dated 09.08.2023 bearing F.N0. DCIT(Central1)/RPR/RT1/2023-24 passed by the Learned DCIT, Central Circle-I, Raipur 2. Copy of Income Tax Computation Form dated 180 - 181 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3) 3. Copy of Income Tax Computation Form dated 28.03.23 u/s 182 143(3) r.w.s. 263. 4. Copy of order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 183 -206 1961 dated 28.03.23

(5) Kind attention is invited to following also: - (a) Page No. 1 of impugned order u/s 263. (b) Page No.2 of impugned order u/s 263. (c) Page No.14 of impugned order u/s 263 — The Learned PCIT admits that the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144. (d) Page No.45 of impugned order u/s 263 (e) Page No.80 and 81 of Paper Book-I filed for the hearing on 08.06223 which is the copy of letter dated 21.06.2019 issued by the Learned ITO-3(2), Raipur vide which the reason to believe was communicated to the assessee after the assessee filed return of income on 01.06.2019.

First Argument: (6) The assessee is assailing the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal inasmuch as the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was bad-in-law and non-Est order which does not exist in the eyes of law due to following reasons: - 6. 1 (a) The assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) renders the assessment order as non-Est. The assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without issuing notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law and is a nullity. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following S. Page No. N0. of the CLC The Hon'ble ITAT, 1. Shri Dev Narayan 121 - Raipur Sahu vs. ITO RPR/2018 dated 132 of Bench 29.04.2022 LPB-3 Gulab Badgujar (2019) 179 ITD Hon'ble ITAT, 1 -7 of 2. HU vs. ITO 807 Pune Pune 'B' Bench LPB-3 3. PCIT vs. Silver Line (2016) 383 ITR Hon’ble High 1 -7 of 455 (Del) Court of Delhi LPB 1

4. PCIT-08 vs. Shri Jai ITA 519/2015 No. Hon'ble High 8-16 of Shiv Shankar Traders Court of Delhi LPB-I Pvt. Ltd.

5. JCIT vs. U.S. Roofs Ltd. (2023) 37 Hon'ble ITAT, 8-13 of NYPTTJ 741 Mumbai Bench LPB-3 Mumbai The Hon'ble High 6. PCIT vs. National (2018) 400 ITR 20-24 of Informatics Centre Court of LPB-3 387 (Del) Delhi Services Inc. 7 ACIT vs. SG (2021) 211 TTJ Hon'ble ITAT, 14- 19 of Portfolio P (Del) 970 Delhi 'G' Bench LPB-3 Ltd.

6.1 (b) The Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal issued notice u/s 263, copy of the notice dated 14.01.2022 is placed on Page No 16 to 18 of the Paper Book. The Learned PCIT could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 in respect of non-Est proceedings which was vitiated by the vice of non- issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2). The assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that if the assessment order passed by the Learned A.O is bad-in-law and non-Est then the Learned PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction over such assessment order which does not exist in the eyes of law.

S. N0. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following age No. of the CLC 1. The Hon'ble 52 - 62 of PCIT vs. Badal Prakash Jindal, 7, 9 & HUF, Bargarh High Court of LPB-3 10 of 2023 dated 02.03223 Orissa at Cuttack

2. Maruti Clean Coal and The Hon'ble ITAT, 63 - 120 Raipur Bench Power Ltd. vs. PCIT-I, RPR/2021 dated of LPB-3 Raipur 31.10.2022 3. 17-21 of Minimax Commerce (P.) Ltd. vs. (2021) 133 Hon'ble ITAT, ACIT, Raipur taxmann.com 188 Raipur Bench LPB-I 4. Keshab Narayan Banerjee vs. (1998) 66 CCH Hon'ble High Court 22 - 29 of CIT 0874 LPB-I of Calcutta 5. Parveen Kumar (2021) 63 CCH Hon'ble ITAT, 30-40 of Mittal vs. PCIT 0256 Chandigarh LPB-I 6. Supersonic Technologies (P) (2019) 175 DTR Hon'ble ITAT, 41-60 of Ltd. vs. PCIT 30 Delhi Bench LPB-I 7. Concord Infra (2021) 63 CCH 61 -71 of Hon'ble ITAT, Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 0117 Kolkata Bench LPB-I 8. Pioneer Distilleries ITA No. Hon'ble ITAT, Pune 72 - 79 of Limited vs. PCIT-I, 479/PUN/2017 Bench LPB-I Aurangabad

6.1 (c) The Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal contended that the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 was non-Est return as the same was filed after the expiry of time limit stipulated in the notice u/s 148, there is no merit in the said contention of the Learned PCIT inasmuch as the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 is very much a return filed u/s 139 and Section 139(4) permits belated filing of the return and therefore, the Learned A.O is not absolved from his duty to issue notice u/s 143(2) merely because the return was filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 after the expiry of time limit stipulated therein, in this regard, the assessee also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Amina Ismil Rangari vs. ITO reported in (2017) 167 ITD 199 (Mumbai) copy whereof is placed on Page No. 80 to 86 of the CLC. 6.1 (d) The assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncements where the assessee had filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 after the expiry of the time stipulated therein and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and yet it was held that the assessment order is bad-in- law, thus, mere delay in filing of return of income in response to the notice under section 148 does not absolve the Learned A.O from his duty to issue notice u/s 143(2).

TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Sl. Following No. Page No. of the CLC 1. Smt. Gayatri Hon'ble ITAT, - 105 of Sharma vs. ITO 461/JP/2018 Jaipur Bench LPB-I 2. Hon'ble High PCIT-III vs. Kamia ITA No. 106 - 118 of Devi Sharma 197/2018 Court of Rajasthan LPB-I

6.1 (e) Mere delay in e-verification does not make the return invalid, assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncement: -

AUTHORITY Following Sl. TITLE CITATION Page No. No. of the CLC 1. (2022) 326 The Hon’ble PCIT & Anr. vs. Electronics & Controls Power Systems Ltd. CTR (Kar) 233 High Court of 25 -29 of Karnataka LPB-3

6.1(f) Upon removal of defect, the date of filing of Return of Income is date of uploading of data electronically, assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncements: -

Sl. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following Page No. No of the CLC 1. Atul Projects India (P) Ltd. vs. (2019) 309 The Hon'ble High 30 - 32 of Union of India & Anr. CTR (Bom) 392 Court of Bombay LPB-3

2. Travel Designer India (P) Ltd. (2020) 315 The Hon'ble High 33 - 41 of vs. DCIT CTR (Guj) 800 Court of Gujarat LPB-3

6.1(g) Assessing officer having not intimated any defect in the Return to the assessee and acted upon the return, he was not justified in treating the return as invalid on the ground of belated E-verification. Assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncement: -

Sl. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following Page No. No of the CLC 1. (2016) 182 TTJ The Hon'ble Fibers & Fabrics 42 - 51 of (Bang) 374 LPB-3 International (P) Ltd. vs. ITAT, Bangalore 'C' DCIT Bench

Second Argument: (7) Information received from Investigation Wing formed the basis for reason to believe: The Learned A.O initiated the reassessment proceedings in the light of information received from the Investigation Wing which is evident from the bare reading of contents of Reason to Believe, copy whereof is placed on Page No. 80 to 81 of the Paper Book, thus, the Learned A.O was conscious about the information and documents received from the Investigation Wing. 7.2 Specific queries raised vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.07.2019, 23.08.2019, 21.10.2019 16.12.2019 and show cause notice dated 27.11.2019: During the course of the reassessment proceedings the Learned A.O had raised specific queries vide statutory notices u/s 142(1) dated 01.07.2019, copy whereof is placed on Page No. 82 to 83 of the Paper Book and the Learned A.O had even issued show cause notice for addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- on account of alleged principal amount of loans given in cash by the assessee and amount of Rs.29,02,008/- on account of alleged Interest income earned by the assessee, copy whereof is placed on Page No. 86 to 87 of the Paper Book. The assessee submitted specific replies in response to the notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notice, copies whereof are placed on Page No. 84 to 85 and Page No. 88 to 97 of the Paper Book respectively. 7.3 There was a conscious application of mind by the Learned A.O and the Learned A.O has taken one possible and plausible view; therefore, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous: It's a trite law that where two views are possible and if the A.O. has drawn one of the possible views, then such an order cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore, jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be assumed, reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements: - S. Title Citation Authority Following No. Page No. of LPB - 2 1. M/S. Sun Developers & Hon'ble ITAT, 1-26 Raipur Bench Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT-I, Bilaspur (CG).

2. Garud Credit & Holding Hon'ble ITAT, 27 - 60 Pvt. Limited vs. ITO KOL/2013 Kolkata Bench Ward 9(2), Kolkata 3. M/s. B.K. Rolling Mills ITA No.40/ Hon'ble ITAT, 61 - 69 Private Limited Vs. Pr. CIT- RPR/2018 Raipur Bench I, Raipur (CG) . 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000) The Hon'ble 70-75 vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 Supreme Court

Third Argument: (8) The assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is bad-in-law also due to the following reasons: - 8.2 The proceedings were initiated based on borrowed satisfaction, in this regard, the assessee relies on following judicial pronouncements: -

TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY S. Following NO. age No. of the CLC 1. PCIT vs. Meenakshi (2017) 395 Hon'ble High 119 - 127 of Overseas Ltd. ITR 677 (Del) Court of Delhi LPB-I 2. ACIT vs. Dhariya (2010) 328 Hon'ble Supreme 128 - 128 of Construction Com an ITR 515 (SC Court of India LPB-I 3. (2012) 248 CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel Hon'ble High 129 - 152 of & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. CTR (Del) 33 Court of Delhi LPB-I 4. Sarthak Securities Co. (2010) 329 Hon'ble High 153 - 160 of Ltd. vs. ITO ITR 110 (Del) Court of Delhi LPB-I

The Learned A.O did not carry out any independent enquiry or Investigation or analysis of the information received by the Learned A.O from the Investigation Wing. 8.3 The reason to believe recorded by the Learned A.O is vitiated by the vice of borrowed satisfaction and non-application of mind, hence, the proceedings- initiated u/s 148 is bad-in-law and therefore, the order passed u/s 263 is also bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.

Prayer: It is humbly prayed that the order u/s 263 passed by PCIT (Central), Bhopal may kindly be quashed.

8. In continuation of the aforesaid written submissions, Ld. AR further submitted that the decision of the Ld. PCIT based on the fact that the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 after 30 days of the notice i.e., on 01.06.2019 is without the mandate of any specific provision under the Act, thus, the same is non-Est, is an erroneous interpretation /application of law, as per Ld. AR the delay in filing of return in response to notice u/s 148 cannot construe the return as non-Est as per the settled principle of law. Ld. AR placed his reliance in this respect, on the judgment in the case of Smt. Amina Ismile Rangari vs. Income Tax Officer, wherein I.T.A.T. , Mumbai in for the AY 2003-04 vide order dated 15.09.2017, wherein ITAT Mumbai has held that: “Though a statutory obligation is cast upon the assessee to comply with the notice issued under s. 148 and file the 'return of income' in compliance thereto within the stipulated time period of 30 days, however, in case the same is filed by the assessee beyond the stipulated time period, then merely for the reason that some delay is involved in filing of the said 'return of income' would not render the same as invalid and non-Est. A 'return of income' filed by an assessee beyond the specified time period contemplated in the notice issued under s. 148, would though lead to characterizing the same as a 'return of income' filed beyond the stipulated time period, but however, the same would not cease to be a 'return of income' filed pursuant to the notice issued under s. 148, though involving some delay. This view is supported from the very fact that as per s. 234A (3), where the 'return of income' in compliance to a notice under s. 148 is filed beyond the stipulated time period, then Interest under the said statutory provision is imposed on the assessee date of furnishing of the same. of s. 234A (3) clearly contemplates that a 'return of income’ filed after the expiry of the stipulated time period shall still continue to be a 'return of income' filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice under s. 148. This view also stands fortified from the very fact that after the assessee had filed the 'return of income' pursuant to the notice under u/s 148 on 10th Aug., 2010, the same was acted upon by the AO and a Notice under s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee, followed by culmination of the same into an assessment under s. 143(3) r/w s 147 when issuance of a notice under s. 143(2) pre supposes the availability of a 'return of income' of the assessee on record, therefore, now when in the present case e AO acted upon the 'return of income' filed by the assessee, and issued a notice under s. 143(2), which thereafter had culminated into an assessment under s. 147 r/w s. 143(3), therefore, it would not be permissible on the part of the Revenue to turn around claim that no valid 'return of income' was filed by the assessee.”

9. Ld. AR advanced another argument that the issue pertaining to invalid return was never confronted to the assessee by the Ld. AO, during the assessment proceedings.

details/documents vide Sl. No.(s) (i) to (ix) of the said notice. Further, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the Assessing Officer had, thereafter, issued another notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 04.10.2016 wherein he had directed the assessee to attend his office personally or through duly authorized representative on 14.10.2016 at 3.30pm a/w. required information /documentary evidence, bank account etc. Observing, that as all the ingredients of the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act could safely be traced/gathered from the aforesaid notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 14.10.2016, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that said notice could be viewed as a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid observations the CIT(Appeals) upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3)/148 of the Act, dated 21.11.2016. For the sake of clarity and in order to dispel any doubt the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are reproduced as under:

“2.3. First, taking the addition ground taken by the appellant challenging the validity of order passed u/s.143(3)/148 as not return of income was filed by him either u/s.139 or u/s.147. As per the assessee in case of no return, the assessment cannot be made u/s.143(3)/147. On going through the assessment order, I find that AO has du/y issued notice u/s.142(1) on 16/09/2016 calling details/documents vide S/. No. (i) to (ix) of the notice. As per sub section 2 of Section 143 " whereas return has been furnished u/s.139 or in response to a notice in under sub section (1) of Section 142, the AO sha// serve on the assessee a notice requiring him either to attend the office of the AO or to produce or cause to be produce before the AO any evidence on which the assessee may re/y in support of the return". After the notice u/s.143(2) is issued, order is passed u/s.143(3). In the present case after issue of notice u/s.143(1) as discussed above, the AO has issued another notice dated 04/10/2016 requiring the assessee to attend the office persona//y or through any authorized representative along with the required information, documentary evidence, bank account etc. on 14/10/2016 at 3.30pm. As can be seen this notice has a// the ingredients of a notice u/s.143(2) a/though the section has not been specifically mentioned. Obviously, this notice has to be viewed as a notice u/s.143(2). Therefore, passing of assessment order u/s.143(3)/147 has been as per Act and appellant's allegation being without basis is hereby dismissed.”

assessment u/s.143(3)/148 of the Act, dated 21.11.2016. As is discernible from the order of the CIT(Appeals), we find that the claim of the assessee before him that in absence of any return of income having been filed by him either u/s.139 or in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, no assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act could have been validly framed in his hands, was rebutted by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the notice(s) u/s.142(1) of the Act, Dated 16.09.2016 and 04.10.2016 could be viewed as a notice u/s. view, the aforesaid observation of the CIT (Appeal) is not only misconceived in the context of the issue, which was raised by the assessee before him, but in fact is absolutely devoid and bereft of any force of law. As observed by us herein above, it was claimed by the assessee that now when he had not filed any return of income with the Assessing Officer then how could an assessment be framed u/s.143(3) of the Act in his case. However, the CIT(Appeals) losing sight of the issue raised by the assessee before him, had upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3)/148 of the Act dated 21.11.2016 on the ground that notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, (supra) could safely be viewed/construed as a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. In our considered view, the aforesaid observation of the CIT(Appeals) was absolutely out of context of the claim that was raised by the assessee before him.

11. To support the aforesaid contention by the Ld AR in the facts and circumstances of the present case that an assessment is framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dehors issuing of the prerequisite notice u/s 143(2) which is mandatory, such assessment order shall be treated as non-Est, he placed reliance on the following judgments: Gulab Badgujar (2019) 179 ITD Hon'ble ITAT, HU vs. ITO 807 Pune Pune 'B' Bench PCIT vs. Silver Line (2016) 383 ITR Hon’ble High 455 (Del) Court of Delhi PCIT-08 vs. Shri Jai Hon'ble High Shiv Shankar Traders Court of Delhi Pvt. Ltd. JCIT vs. U.S. Roofs Ltd. (2023) 37 Hon'ble ITAT, NYPTTJ 741 Mumbai Bench Mumbai PCIT vs. National (2018) 400 ITR The Hon'ble Informatics Centre High Court of 387 (Del) Delhi Services Inc. ACIT vs. SG (2021) 211 TTJ Hon'ble ITAT, Portfolio (Del) 970 Delhi 'G' Bench P Ltd.

12. Ld. AR further submitted that the action of Ld PCIT was beyond his jurisdiction in invoking the revisionary provisions of section 263 on the basis of a non-Est assessment on account of non-issuance of compulsory notice u/s 143(2). Such a peculiar situation on issue under deliberation has been discussed and decided in the following judgments, upon which the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance:

28. In our considered view there is substance in the claim of the Id. AR that as the proceedings before the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, dated 27.03.2021 are in the nature of collateral proceedings, therefore, the assessee could in the course of appellate proceedings which in turn originates from the order passed u/ s 263 of the Act, dated 27.03,2021 challenge the validity of the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 30.12.2018. The aforesaid contention of the ld. A.R that the illegality/ invalidity of an order passed in the primary proceedings can be challenged in the course of the collateral proceedings finds support from the order of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Westlife Development Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT- 5, Mumbai (2017) 88 taxmann.com 439 (Mumbai). It was, inter alia, observed by the tribunal that an assessee can challenge the validity of an order passed u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that the impugned assessment order was non- Est. Indulgence of the tribunal in the said case was sought by the assessee for adjudicating the following issues (as culled out from the order):

"1. Whether the assessee can challenge the validity of an assessment order during the appellate proceedings pertaining to examination of validity of order passed u/s 263? 2. Whether the impugned assessment order passed u/ s 143(3) dated 24- 10-2013 was valid in the eyes of law or a nullity as has been claimed by the assessee? 3. If the impugned assessment order passed u/ s 143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/ s 263 to revise the non-Est assessment order?"

(A). Answering the first issue, i.e., whether the assessee remains within his right to challenge the validity of an assessment order during the appellate proceedings pertaining to examination of validity of order passed u/ s 263 of the Act, the tribunal had on the basis of its exhaustive deliberations and drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements answered the said issue in the affirmative. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the tribunal in context of the aforesaid issue are culled out as under:

"8. Challenging the jurisdictional defects of assessment order for assailing the jurisdictional validity of the revision order passed u/ s 263: The first issue that arises for our consideration is whether the assessee can challenge the jurisdictional validity of order passed u/ s 143(3) in the appellate proceedings taken up for challenging the order passed u/ s 263? If we analyse the nature of both of these proceedings, which are under consideration before us, we find that the original assessment proceedings can be classified in a way as 'primary proceedings'. These are, in effect, basic foundational proceedings and akin to a platform upon which any subsequent proceedings connected therewith can Rest upon. The proceedings-initiated u/s 263 seeking to revise the original assessment order is off shoot of the primary proceedings and therefore, these may be termed as 'collateral proceedings' in the legal framework. The issue that arises here is whether any illegality/invalidity in the order passed in the 'primary proceedings' can be set up in the 'collateral proceedings' and if yes, then of what nature? 8.1. We have analysed this issue carefully. There is no doubt that after passing of the original assessment order, the primary (i.e. original proceedings) had come to an end and attained finality and, therefore, outcome of the same cannot be disturbed, and therefore, the original assessment order framed to conclude the primary proceedings had also attained finality and it also cannot be disturbed at the instance of the assessee, except as permitted under the law and by following the due process of law. Under these circumstances, it can be said that effect of the original assessment order cannot be erased or modified subsequently. In other words, whatever tax liability had been determined in the original assessment order that had already become final and that cannot be sought to be disturbed by the assessee. But the issue that arises here is that if the original assessment order is illegal in terms of its jurisdiction or if the same is null & void in the eyes of law on any jurisdictional grounds, then, whether it can give rise to initiation of further proceedings and whether such subsequent proceedings would be valid under the law as contained in Income Tax Act? It has been vehemently argued before us that the subsequent proceedings (i.e. collateral proceedings) derive strength only from the order passed in the original proceedings (i.e. primary proceedings). Thus, if order passed in the original proceedings is itself illegal, then that cannot give rise to valid revision proceedings. Therefore, as per law, the validity of the order passed in the primary (original) proceedings should be allowed to be examined even at the subsequent stages, only for the limited purpose of examining whether the collateral (subsequent) proceedings have been initiated on a valid legal platform or not and for examining the validity of assumption of jurisdiction to initiate the collateral proceedings. If it is not so allowed, then, it may so happen that though order passed in the original proceedings was illegal and thus order passed in the subsequent proceedings in turn would also be illegal, but in absence of a remedy to Contest the same, it may give rise to an 'enforceable' tax liability without authority of law. Therefore, the Courts have taken this view that jurisdictional aspects of the order passed in the primary proceedings can be examined in the collateral proceedings also. This issue is not res integra. This issue has been decided in many judgments by various courts, and some of them have been discussed by us in followings paragraphs.

8.2. In a matter that came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., [1955] 1 SCR 117 the facts were that the appellant in that case had undervalued the suit at Rs.2,950 and laid it in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr for recovery of possession of the suit lands and mesne profits. The suit was dismissed and on appeal it was confirmed. In the second appeal in the High Court the Registry raised the objection as to valuation under Section 11. The value of the appeal was fixed at Rs.9,980. A contention then was raised by the plaintiff in the High Court that on account of the valuation fixed by the High Court the appeal against the decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge did not lie to the District Court, but to the High Court and on that account the decree of the District Court was a nullity. Alternatively, it was contended that it caused prejudice to the appellant. In considering that contention at page 121, a four Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking through Vankatarama Ayyar, J. held that:

"It is a fundamental principle well-Established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." 8.3. This judgment was subsequently followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Sushil Kumar Mehta vs Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193, wherein an issue arose whether a decree can be challenged at the stage of execution and whether a decree which remained Uncontested operates as res-judicata qua the parties affected by it. Hon'ble apex court, taking support from aforesaid judgment, observed as under:

"In the light of this position in law the Question for determination is whether the impugned decree of the Civil Court can be assailed by the appellant in execution. It is already held that it is the Controller under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant from a building in the urban area leased out by the landlord. Thereby the Civil Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass a decree of ejectment. Therefore, though the decree was passed, and the jurisdiction of the Court was gone into in issue Nos. 4 and 5 at the ex-parte trial, the decree there-under is a nullity, and does not bind the appellant. Therefore, it does not operate as a res judicata. The Courts below have committed grave error of law in holding that the decree in the suit operated as res judicata and the appellant cannot raise the same point once again at the execution." 8.4. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court by following aforesaid judgments recently in the case of Indian Bank vs Manilal Govind ji khona reported in 2015 (3) SCC 712. Further, similar view was emphasized by Hon'ble Bombay High Court (GOA Bench) in the case of Mavany Brothers vs CIT (Tax Appeal No 8 of 2007) in its order dt 17th April 2()15 wherein it was held that an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in appeal or execution.

8.5. The aforesaid principles, enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Charnan Paswan & Ors, supra were reiterated by the Apex Court in the cases of Superintendent of Taxes vs Onkarmal Nathmal Trust (AIR 1975 SC 2065) and Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao (AIR 1974 SC 2089). In the first of these decisions, it was pointed out that revenue statutes protect the public on the one hand and confer power upon the State on the other, and the fetter on the jurisdiction is one meant to protect the public on the broader ground of public policy and, therefore, jurisdiction to assess or reassess a person can never be waived or created by consent. This decision shows that the basic principle recognized in Kiran Singh (supra) is applicable even to revenue statutes such as the Income Tax Act. Dasa Muni Reddy (supra) is a judgment where the principle of 'coram non judice' was applied to rent control law. It was held that neither the rule of Estoppel nor the principle of res judicata can confer the Court jurisdiction where none exists. Here also the principle that was put into operation was that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or agreement where it did not exist, nor can the lack of jurisdiction be waived.

8.6. These judgments were subsequently noticed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P. V. Doshi 113 ITR 22(Gujrat). This case arose under the Income Tax Act with reference to the provisions of Section 147 dealing with re-assessment. The facts were that the assessment was sought to be reopened under Section 147 and notice under section 148 was issued. Validity of reopening was not challenged up to Tribunal and additions were challenged on merits only. The Tribunal Restored the matter to the Assessing Officer with some directions to reexamine the issue on merits. When the matter came back to the assessing officer the assessee specifically raised the point of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, contending that the notice of reopening was prompted by a mere change of opinion. The AO rejected plea of the assessee, but the AAC accepted this ground and also held the re-assessment to be bad in law on jurisdictional ground. Against the order of the AAC the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal and specifically raised the plea that the Question of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment shaving been expressly given up by the assessee in the appeal against the reassessment order in the first round, the assessee was debarred from raising that point again before the AAC and the AAC was equally wrong in permitting the assessee to raise that point which had become final in the first round and in adjudicating upon the same. The plea of the Revenue impressed the Tribunal which took the view that after its earlier order in the first round of proceedings the matter attained finality with regard to the point of jurisdiction which was given up before the AAC and not agitated further and that in the remand proceedings what was open before the Assessing Officer was only the question whether the addition was justified on merits and the point regarding the jurisdictional aspect was not open before the Assessing Officer. According to the Tribunal, the assessee having raised the point in the first round and having given it up could not revive it in the second round of proceedings where the issue was limited to the merits of the additions. In this view, the Tribunal accepted the Revenues plea. The assessee thereafter carried order of the Tribunal in reference before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court on the point of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and also after specifically discussing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Onkarma1Nathmal Trust (supra) and Dasa Muni Reddy (supra) held that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the Question of jurisdiction became final when it passed the earlier remand order. It was held that neither the Question of res judicata nor the rule of Estoppel could be invoked where the jurisdiction of an authority was under challenge. According to Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the rule of res judicata cannot be invoked where the Question involved is the competence of the Court to assume jurisdiction, either pecuniary or territorial or over the subject matter of the dispute. Hon'ble High Court further held that since neither consent nor waiver can confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer where it did not exist, no importance could be attached to the fact that the assessee, in the first round of proceedings, expressly gave up the plea against the erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing authority. According to the Hon'ble Court, the "finality or conclusiveness could only arise in respect of orders which are competent orders with jurisdiction and if the proceedings of reassessment are not validly initiated at all, the order would be a void order as per the settled legal position which could never have any finality or conclusiveness. If the original order is without jurisdiction, it would be only a nullity confirmed in further appeals". In this view of the matter, Hon'ble High Court finally answered the reference in favour of the assessee.

8.7. It is further noted that many of these judgments were discussed and followed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd vs JCIT 105 ITD 33 (Del), wherein a similar issue had arisen. In this case, the issue raised before the bench was whether it is open to the assessee, not having appealed against the reassessment order, to set up or canvass its correctness in collateral proceedings taken for rectification thereof u/ s 154. The bench minutely analyzed law in this regard and applying the principle of 'coram non judice' and following aforesaid judgments of the supreme court, it was held that if an assessee seeks to challenge the reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction, when action for rectification is sought to be taken on the assumption of the validity of the reassessment order, then the assessee has to step in and protect its Interests and the liberty to Question even the validity of the reassessment proceedings ought to be given to it.... ..." (emphasis supplied). 8.8 Similar view was taken in another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 ITD 87 (Del). In the said case, appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty. In the appeal challenging the penalty order, the assessee challenged the validity of block assessment order which had determined the tax liability of the assessee on the basis of which penalty was levied subsequently. The revenue objected with respect to the ground of the assessee raising jurisdictional issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analyzing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainarayan Babulal vs CIT, 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no Question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the Question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty.

8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd vs CIT

194 ITR 548 (Bombay) wherein it was held that assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings before the CIT(A) in the second round of proceedings, even though he had not raised it in earlier proceedings before the Assessing Officer or in the earlier appeal.

8.10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion we can safely hold that as per law, the assessee should be permitted to challenge the validity of order passed u/ s 263 on the ground that the impugned assessment order was non-Est, and we hold accordingly." (B). Answering the second issue, i.e., if the order passed u/ s 143(3) was illegal or nullity, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263 to revise the non-Est assessment order, the tribunal answered in the negative. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the tribunal in context of the aforesaid issue are culled out as under:

10. If the impugned assessment order passed u/ s 143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/ s 263 to revise the non-Est assessment order: Having decided the aforesaid two issues, the next issue that is to be decided by us is about the validity of order passed u/ s 263 by the Ld. CIT seeking to revise the assessment order which was nullity in the eyes of law.

10.1. We have discussed in detail in earlier part of our order that an invalid order cannot give birth to legally valid proceedings. It is further noticed by us that some of the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel have already addressed this issue. This issue has also been decided by the co-ordinate bench (Delhi Bench of Tribunal) in the case of Krishna Kumar Saraf vs CIT (supra). The relevant part of the order is reproduced below: "17. There is no quarrel with the proposition advanced by Id. DR that the proceedings u/ s 263 are for the benefit of revenue and not for assessee.

19. While exercising powers u/ s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non-Est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the right of assessee which has accrued in favour of assessee on account of its income being determined. If Id. Commissioner revises such an assessment order, then it would imply extending/ granting fresh limitation for passing fresh assessment order. It is settled law that by the action of the authorities the limitation cannot be extended, because the provisions of limitation are provided in the same.

20. In view of above discussion, ground no.3 is allowed and revision order passed u/ s 263 is quashed." 10.2. It is further noticed by us that similar view has been taken by Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips Ltd (supra).

"10.4 The Learned Counsel for the Assessee also argued that since the assessment is framed on the basis of the revised return filed on 1stJuly, 2013 and according to Ld. CIT it was a non-Est return, if assessment is framed on non-Est return, the assessment itself would be mill and void and could not be subject matter of jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) in which original assessment order was held to be null and void in the eye of Law as same was passed upon non-existing entity. Therefore, it was held that Ld. CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction under the Law to make revision of a non-Est order. Therefore, impugned order passed under section 263 by the CIT was also held invalid in the eye of Law and therefore, the same was quashed. The A.O in this case has framed the assessment on the basis of revised return filed on 1st July 2013 and taken the income from the same for computing the total income of assessee. It is also case of the Revenue that even the A.O. did not mention original return of income in the assessment order, therefore, even if it is considered that revised return dated 1st July 2013 which is basis for completing the assessment in Question was non-Est, then the entire assessment would vitiated and would also be non-Est under the eye of Law. Therefore, decision of the Mumbai Bench would apply to the facts of the case. When assessment order itself is null and void based on non-Est revised return, the Ld. CIT could not have exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the I T Act."

We further find that the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Krishan Kumar Saraf Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hissar, dated 24.09.2015 had also taken a similar view. It was observed by the tribunal that the CIT cannot revise an order which is non-Est in the eyes of law. In the said case the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings which had originated from the order passed by the CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act had assailed the validity of the order passed u/ s 263, for the reason that the notice u/ s 143(2) was issued beyond the stipulated time period. The department objected to the aforesaid challenge thrown by the assessee to the validity of the assessment order on the ground that as the assessee had not challenged the assessment order, therefore, the same had attained finality. However, the said contention of the revenue was turned down by the tribunal by relying on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Central-I Vs. Escorts Farms Pvt. Ltd., 180 ITR 280(De1) on the ground that the CIT could not have revised a non-Est order, The relevant observations of the tribunal are for the sake of clarity culled out as under: Admittedly the notice u/ s 143(2) was issued beyond time 16. and, therefore, the assessment order was bad in law. Ld. CIT(DR)'s submission is that assessee has not challenged the assessment order. However, since the assessee was not aggrieved with the assessment order, therefore, he did not challenge. However, nothing turns on this when we consider the issue in the backdrop of proceedings-initiated u/ s 263 by Id. Commissioner. The moot point for consideration is as to whether this objection can be entertained at this stage of proceeding or not. In this regard we find that the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Escorts Farms Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which we have extensively reproduced earlier, clearly supports the Assessee’s plea.

There is no quarrel with the proposition advanced by Id. DR 17. that the proceedings u/ s 263 are for the benefit of revenue and not for assessee.

However, u/s 263 the Id. Commissioner cannot revise a non- 18. Est order in the eye of law. Since the assessment order was passed in pursuance to the notice u/ s 143(2), which was beyond time, therefore, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non-Est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non-service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter.

While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot 19. revise an assessment order which is non-Est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the right of assessee which has accrued in favour of assessee on account of its income being determined. If Id. Commissioner revises such an assessment order, then it would imply extending/ granting fresh limitation for passing fresh assessment order. It is settled law that by the action of the authorities the limitation cannot be extended, because the provisions of limitation are provided in the statute.

In view of above discussion, ground no. 3 is allowed and the 20. revisional order passed u/ s 263 is quashed."

We, thus, on the basis of our aforesaid deliberations read along with the aforesaid settled position of law concur with the Id. AR that now when the impugned order of reassessment under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 30.12.2018 in itself had been passed on the basis of invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, and thus, is invalid and bereft of any force of law; or in fact non-Est in the eyes of law, therefore, the same could not have been revised by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act.

The appellant himself had produced annexure A-I which the reply filed by him pursuant to the details called for the Assessing Officer. It seen from annexure A-I that the entire Questions raised and considered in the reassessment was answered by the assessee. However, the assessee has written in paragraph 7 of the said reply that he was not issued any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the normal course, a detailed reply in the nature is furnished only after issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In any case, we find that after the assessee filed annexure A 1 reply, no further notice is required, because reply was already filed by the appellant. The procedure under section 143(2) of the Act is to ensure that an adverse order is issued only after proper opportunity is given to the assessee. In this case, it is conceded that the assessee got opportunity to file reply and detailed reply was in fact filed and the reassessment notice, and the final order were also issued within the time limit prescribed under the Act.

13. In such circumstances, answering the aforesaid Question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee this appeal is dismissed.

18. Ld. CIT DR, in view of aforesaid submissions has argued that the since the assessee had not filed a valid return, even the same was not e- verified by the assessee within stipulated time, requirements of issuing notice u/s 143(2) was dispensed with and the same cannot rescue the contention of the assessee, thus the proceedings initiated u/s 263 are valid, well within the powers of Ld PCIT, deserves to be sustained.

(i) Whether a return filed beyond the prescribed time limit under the notice u/s 148, should be treated as non-Est return or not? (ii) Whether an assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 can be treated as invalid or non-Est, merely when a notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued? (iii) Whether the assessee can challenge the validity of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3), during the Appellate proceedings pertaining to examination of validity of assumption of jurisdiction and the order passed u/s 263? (iv) If the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was found to be illegal or at nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the Ld. PCIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263 to revise the non-Est assessment order?

Order pronounced in the open court on 22/11/2023.