Pr. CIT v. S.G Portfolio (P) Ltd.

454 ITR 761High Court2023#9803 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. S.G Portfolio (P) Ltd. authority for?

Where an assessee files a return of income in response to a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer must issue a notice under section 143(2) to frame the assessment, and failure to do so is fatal to the reassessment order.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. S.G Portfolio (P) Ltd. · section 148 · section 143(2) · mandatory notice · reassessment proceedings · failure to issue notice · fatal to assessment order · return of income

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. S.G Portfolio (P) Ltd.

Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Palakol vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Rajahmundry

ITA 199/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.199/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Swamy Temple, (Exemptions), Palakol. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aakas5615E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2023, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28/12/2019 For A.Y. 2017-18. 2 I Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple Vs. Ito (Exemptions)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…em in the “return of income” filed by the assessee u/s.148 of the Act, which required an explanation, then he ought to have followed up by a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. S.G Portfolio (P) Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 761 (Del.) has, inter alia, held that where the assessee has filed a “return of income” in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the A.O. was required to issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act for framing the assessment. We further find that Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Amec Foster Wheeler Iberia SLU-India Project Office Vs. DCIT, (2023)…

Pr. CIT v. S.G Portfolio (P) Ltd. (454 ITR 761) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax