Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 6779
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (RAIPUR BENCH)
Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Member
Vidya Shankar Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
ITA Nos.141 & 142/RPR/2026 | Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yash Dhariwal, Yash Jain
For the Respondents: Dr. Priyanka Patel
Notice u/s.143(2) mandatory for assessments u/s.143(3)/144/147; non-issuance quashes proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(2), 144, 147 - Issuance of notice u/s.143(2) is mandatory and sine qua non for completing assessment u/s.143(3) or 144, even in reassessment proceedings u/s.147, regardless of whether return was filed or not. Failure to issue such notice renders assessment order invalid, bad in law and void ab initio. (Paras 2, 3, 9)
(B) Section 292BB does not cure failure to issue notice u/s.143(2); it applies only to service defects, not jurisdictional requirement to issue notice. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Assessee filed appeals against CIT(A) orders confirming assessments u/ss.144/147 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15. No notice u/s.143(2) was issued despite return filed on 27.12.2018 before assessment order dated 29.12.2018.
Findings of Court:
Reassessment orders quashed for non-issuance of mandatory notice u/s.143(2).
Issues: Whether notice u/s.143(2) is mandatory for assessments u/ss.144/147 even if no return filed initially.
Ratio Decidendi: Notice u/s.143(2) is jurisdictional prerequisite; its absence invalidates proceedings, as held in Shaily Juneja v. ACIT and ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessee challenges reassessment for lack of s.143(2) notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. return filed; s.143(2) notice mandatory per shaily juneja. (Para 3) |
| 3. itat precedent confirms reassessment invalid sans s.143(2) notice. (Para 4) |
| 4. appeals allowed; assessments quashed on jurisdictional ground. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
आदेश/ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 30.12.2025 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. The contention in law for adjudication in both these appeals are that while completing assessment u/ss.144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), mandatory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was never issued to the assessee. It was contended by the Ld. Sr. DR that since no return was filed, hence, there was no occasion for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act.
3. That as per records, it is evident that return was filed electronically on 27.12.2018 and issuance of assessment order was dated 29.12.2018 as demonstrated in the copy of the demand notice annexed at paper book filed by the assessee, therefore, it is clearly evident that even return was filed, after which, assessment order a/w. demand notice was issued to the assessee. That further, the Ld. Sr. DR could not furnish any answer to the query raised by the Bench that in case no return has been filed, but the fact remains that the Department has proceeded to complete the assessment u/ss.144/147 of the Act without issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The aforesaid contention in law is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by 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 Assessin
