IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2204/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pooja Goel, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-13, A/6, Model Town-III, Ward-35(1), Delhi.

New Delhi.

PAN: AGYPG 8307 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Department represented by Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of hearing 28.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 28.08.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s’ order dated 24.02.2025 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073630403(1)] in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s.

144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. It transpires at the outset that the assessee/appellant herein challenges the validity of the impugned section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.ws. 144B assessment dated 23.03.2023 itself for want of issuance of section 143(2) notice which has been held as mandatory in hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in ACIT vs. M/s Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). There is further no dispute between the parties that learned assessing authority had issued notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2022, requiring the assessee to file return in response thereof. There is again no quarrel that the assessee chose to file the return on 30.04.2022 followed by the above assessment getting framed in her case on 23.03.2023.

It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee’s vehement contention before us is that the impugned assessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the assessing authority had never issued its section 143(2) notice before framing the same. The Revenue, on the other hand, vehemently argues that gives the fact that the assessee’s return was beyond it’s stipulated time of 30 days in the Assessing Officer’s 148 notice, no such compliance is mandatory any more as per learned lower authorities’ respective findings.

3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions. The first and foremost issue herein is the validity of the impugned assessment for want of issue of section 143(2) notice (supra). We note that the very issue arose recently before the learned coordinate bench in ITO v. Artistic Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2781/Del/2023dated 08.05.2025 which stands decided in the assessee’s favour as follows:

“3. The assessee on the other hand, filed application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (“the Rules”) to contend that the assessment order framed under s. 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act for the AY 2012-13 is nonest and bad in law at the threshold due to non- issuance of notice under s. 143(2) of the Act subsequent to issuance of notice under s. 148 of the Act.

4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to application made under Rule 27 of the Rules and submitted that it is an admitted position that while initiating re-assessment proceedings by issuance of notice under s. 148 of the Act for assumption of jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act, no notice under s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued. This fact could also be verified. There is no mention of issuance of notice under s. 143(2) of the Act in para 2 of the assessment order where details of notices issued under s. 148 & 142(1) of the of the Act are tabulated. The issuance of notice under s. 143(2) is conspicuously absent. The ‘Screenshot of e-proceedings portal’ further supports the case made out towards non- issuance of mandatory notice under s. 143(2) of the Act. The notices issued for e-proceedings merely demonstrate notice issued under s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act. The assessee, in the instant case, e-filed return of income on 23.05.2018 for AY 2012-13 consequent upon issuance of notice dated 31.03.2018 under s. 148 of the Act to re-open the assessmen