In reassessment u/s 147 on return filed u/s 148 (deemed u/s 139), notice u/s 143(2) mandatory within time limit for jurisdiction u/s 143(3); delay incurable by s.292BB. (28 words)

आदेश/ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 18.09.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O”) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 30.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 is not in accordance with law and consequently the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice as invalid.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not holding that the assessing officer having not provided the Reasons recorded for reopening in spite of specific request by the appellant, the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not quashing the assessment order passed by the assessing officer on the ground that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued within the time stipulated under the Act.

5. Without prejudice to Ground no.2 to 4, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,14,97,772 made by the assessing officer u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act towards deemed dividend.

6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 30.03.2015, declaring an income of Rs. 6,04,940/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 55,200/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited scrutiny” under CASS to verify certain issues viz., (i) receipts u/s. 194C and u/s 194J (as per 26AS) were more than the receipts shown in the return of income; and (ii) cash deposits in savings bank accounts were more than the turnover. The AO, vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.06.2016, framed the assessment and accepted the income returned by the assessee, as such.

3. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT, Rajahmundry, initiated revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act, which, however, were dropped by him vide his order dated 28.03.2019, for the reason that the impugned proceedings were initiated on issues that were unconnected to the issues that had formed the basis for selection of the case of the assessee for “Limited Scrutiny”.

4. Later on, the AO, based on the information that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2019, was issued and served upon the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income on 30.03.2019, declaring an income of Rs. 6,04,940/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 55,200/-, i.e., as was originally returned and assessed by the AO.

5. As is discernible from the record, the AO had issued notice under sectio