आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपरु म(cid:581)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR (cid:302)ी पाथ (cid:91) सारथी चौधर(cid:547), Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.396/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Satya Enterprises Ward No.3, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 PAN: ADCFS1415L .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 23.04.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits shall become academic only.

3. The only legal contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was not issued to the assessee in respect of the assessment completed u/s. 144 of the Act, dated 24.11.2019. I take guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT, (2024) 167 taxmann.com 90 (Delhi) wherein it was held that issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is sine-qua-non in respect of assessment framed u/s.143(3) & 144 of the Act. For the sake of completeness, the relevant observation of the aforesaid judgment are culled out as follows:

10. The aforesaid view came to be reiterated by the Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Dart Infrabuild Pvt Ltd, as would be evident from the following observations which appear in that decision:-

"15.2 The absence of notice, under section 143(2), impregnates the proceedings with a jurisdictional defect and, hence, renders it invalid in the eyes of the law. This position is no longer res integra, as demonstrated by the observations made in Principal CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pot.

Ltd.1 (page 452 of 383 ITR):

"12. The narration of facts as noted above by the court makes it clear that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee after December 16, 2010, the date on which the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act.

13. In DIT v. Society for Worldwide Inter Bank Financial, Tele-2023 SCC OnLine Del 7382 communications', this court invalidated a reassessment proceeding after noting that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under section 143(2) of the Act only after the return filed by the assessee is actually scrutinised by the Assessing Officer.

14. The interplay of sections 143(2) and 148 of the Act formed the subject matter of at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Rajeev Sharma2 it was held that a plain reading of section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall be incumbent to send a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It was observed (page 687): The provisions contained in sub- section (2) of section 143 of the Act is mandatory and the Legislature in its wisdom by using the word "reason to believe" had cast a duty on the Assessing Officer to apply mind to the material on record and after being satisfied with regard to escaped liability, sh