IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3974/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2011-12]

The A.C.I.T. Vs. Logic Control Pvt Ltd Ward – 19(1) 1115, Hemkund Chamber New Delhi 89, Nehru Place South East Delhi, New Delhi PAN: AAACL 0413 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Shri Uma Shankar, Adv Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld.

CIT(A), Delhi dated 30.04.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2011-12.

2. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon which was in the context of assessment u/s 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] whereas in the instant case, the same does not apply as the case is reopening u/s 148 of the Act.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was a non-filer and it’s case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act vide notice dated 29.03.2018. The return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act was filed on 11.09.2018 declaring an income of Rs 58,92,107/- which was processed u/s 143(1). The Assessing Officer framed assessment u/s

143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 14.12.2018 at Rs 2,48,73,357/-.

4. The issue for adjudication before us is as to whether the assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is legally valid in the absence of any service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

5. The ld. DR vehemently stated that the reliance of the ld. CIT(A)

on the case of Hotel Blue Moon, Civil Appeal No.1198 Of 2010 dated

02.02.2010 is not applicable in the instant case as the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee filed delayed return in response to the same. The return was filed beyond the stipulated time and hence the issue/service of notice u/s 143(2) is not applicable in such a case.

6. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee forcefully argued that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is a must while framing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that in the instant case, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued at all. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer has further considered the return filed on 11.09.2018 in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and has accepted the return as valid while determining the total income. In view of the same, the ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the decision in the case of PCIT Vs.

Dart Infrabuild Pvt Ltd 460 ITR 532 is squarely applicable.

7. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. The uncontroverted facts in the instant case are that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act vide notice dated 29.03.2018 and the return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act was filed on 11.09.2018. The RoI was processed u/s 143(1) at Rs 58,92,107/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 1,89,81,250/- and ultimately framed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 14.12.2018 at Rs 2,48,73,357/-. It is also an admitted fact that the notice u/s 143(2) was not issued in the instant case.

8. The legal requirement of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was established by the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) where the return filed is necessary to be checked and for framing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. We find that the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Dart Infrabuild [supra] is squarely applicable which reads as under:

“

15. This brings us to the second aspect of the matter, i.e., the consequences of the failure of the appellant/revenue to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act before framing the assessm