Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 8539

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (INDORE BENCH)
B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member, Paresh M. Joshi, Judicial Member
Hansraj Jain – Appellant
Versus
ACIT(Central) -2, Indore – Respondent
IT(SS)A No. 58 to 63/Ind/2024|ITA No. 542/Ind/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arpit Gaur, Vivek Garg
For the Respondents: Ashish Porwal

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the filing of an income tax return is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite for completing an assessment under Section 143(3). A notice issued prior to the filing of a return is non-est in law and invalid.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(2) and 143(3) - Assessment - Requirement of notice - Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) after filing of return of income is mandatory for assuming jurisdiction to frame assessment under Section 143(3) - Notice issued prior to the filing of return is non-est in law and invalid - Non-issuance of a valid notice is not a curable defect and renders the assessment order void ab initio. (Paras 11, 14, 16, 17)

(B) Appeals - Remand - Non-prosecution of appeals before the first appellate authority - Where the assessee, due to advanced age and medical conditions, failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, interest of justice and fair play warrants granting an opportunity for de novo adjudication upon imposition of reasonable costs. (Paras 3, 5)

Facts of the case:
Seven appeals were filed against a consolidated order. For six assessment years, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution by the first appellate authority due to the assessee's non-compliance. For the last assessment year, the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground that the jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) was issued before the filing of the return of income.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the first appellate authority's dismissal for non-prosecution in the first six cases failed to consider the appellant's documented advanced age and illness, necessitating a remand for de novo adjudication. Regarding the legal challenge, the court confirmed that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued prior to the filing of the return, and no such notice was issued thereafter, failing the statutory requirement.

Issues: Whether the dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution was justified given the circumstances, and whether an assessment order framed without a valid notice under Section 143(2) (issued post-return filing) is sustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi: The service of notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit after the filing of the return is a sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction to frame an assessment under Section 143(3). A notice issued prior to the filing of the return is non-est in law. Section 292BB does not cure complete absence of notice.

Result: Six appeals allowed for statistical purposes with remand; one appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background of the search and assessment orders. (Para 1 , 2)
2. restoration of appeals to lower authority for de novo adjudication due to non-prosecution. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. issuance of notice u/s 143(2) after return filing is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement; prior issuance is invalid. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Bench:

The captioned seven (7) appeals have been filed by assessee against a consolidated order of first-appeal dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”] in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-3, Bhopal/IT/10211, 10208, 10210, 10209, 10213, 10207 & 10212/2017-18, which is turn arises out of a consolidated assessment order dated 29.03.2016 passed by ACIT (Central)-2, Indore u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for AYs 2008-09 to 2013-14 and u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15.

2. The background facts leading to these seven (7) appeals are as under:

(i) A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out by income-tax authorities on 28.02.2014 on “Doshi Group” of Indore including assessee. The assessee is a money lender as well as one of the partners in certain concerns of “Doshi Group”. Pursuant to search, the notices were issued on 08.06.2015 for framing assessments u/s 153A of preceding six (6) AYs 2008-09 to 2013-14. In response, the assessee filed returns of those six (6) years. The position of those six (6) years, as noted by AO, in Para 4 of assessment-year is as under:

A.Y.	Date of filing of Return u/s 139(1)	Returned income (in Rs.)	Date of filing of Return in response to the notice u/s 153A	Income declared in Return u/s 153A (In Rs.)	Additional income offered, if any (In Rs.)
2008-09	15/10/2008	11,98,860/-	21/12/2015	11,98,860/-	NIL
2009-10	23/10/2009	4,94,600/-	21/12/2015	3,81,170/-	(-) 1.13.430/-
2010-11	10/12/2010	10,81,630/-	21/12/2015	46,01,190/-	35,19,560/-
2011-12	04/02/2012	53,47,190/-	21/12/2015	55,52,560/-	2,05,370/-
2012-13	07/12/2012	11,59,670/-	21/12/2015	18,82,500/-	7,22,830/-
2013-14	26/03/2014	12,60,260/-	21/12/2015	16,71,810/-	4,11,550/-

(ii) Further, for AY 2014-15 relevant to the previous year 2013-14 in which search was conducted, the assessee filed return on 21.12.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 17,34,830/-.

(iii) Ultimately, the AO framed assessments of all seven (7) years after making certain additions. The AO, however, passed a single consolidated assessment-order for his convenience making following note in first para of assessment-order:

“Since, there are common issues involved. this is a common order for assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15 in the case of the assessee. The order for assessment year 2008-09 to 2013-14 are being passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter called the Act) and order for 2014-15 is being passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.”

(iv) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in seven (7) separate appeals before CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of all seven (7) appeals through a single consolidated order dated 21.05.2024 dismissing all appeals.

(v) Now, the assessee has come in this bunch of seven (7) appeals before us.

IT(SS)A No. 58 to 63/Ind/2024 of Six (6) AYs 2008-09 to 2013-14:

3. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeals for non-prosecution. Para No. 2 of impugned order of first-appeals shows that the CIT(A) granted hearings to assessee on 29.08.2017, 14.02.2019, 23.08.2019, 11.10.2019, 16.01.2020 & 21.12.2020 but the assessee did not respond. On 23.12.2020, the assessee filed an application for adjournment and considering same, the CIT(A) fixed hearings on 27.01.2021 & 04.03.2021. On 04.03.2021, the assessee again filed adjournment application and considering same, the CIT(A) fixed hearings on 23.06.2021, 05.08.2021, 24.09.2021, 12.11.2021, 11.03.2022, 01.02.2023, 11.10.2023 & 07.05.2024 but still the assessee remained non-compliant. Ultimately, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 8539

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (INDORE BENCH)B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member, Paresh M. Joshi, Judicial MemberHansraj Jain – AppellantVersusACIT(Central) -2, Indore – RespondentIT(SS)A No. 58 to 63/Ind/2024|ITA No. 542/Ind/2024

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the filing of an income tax return is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite for completing an assessment under Section 143(3). A notice issued prior to the filing of a return is non-est in law and invalid.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (INDORE BENCH)
B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member, Paresh M. Joshi, Judicial Member
Hansraj Jain – Appellant
Versus
ACIT(Central) -2, Indore – Respondent
IT(SS)A No. 58 to 63/Ind/2024|ITA No. 542/Ind/2024