Issuance of notice u/s.143(2) is mandatory and sine qua non for valid reassessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147; its absence renders assessment void ab initio.

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 17.10.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 58 days. That explaining the reasons for such delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit 27.02.2026. For the sake of completeness, the relevant contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows:

3. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection regarding the condonation of delay.

4. Considering the contents of the condonation petition a/w. affidavit and relying on various judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the said delay of 58 days involved in the present appeal is condoned.

5. 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.

6. 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.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 01.12.2018. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel referring to the assessment order submitted that though there was reference of issuing notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, however, there is no whisper regarding issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act.

7. Per contra, the Ld. Sr.DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities and fairly conceded to the fact that as per the assessment order, there is no reference of issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act.

8. The issue is no more “Res-Integra”. 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. Societ