##PAGE1##

Page | 1 ITA No.4684/Del/2025 Chanchal Bansal (AY:2019-20)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.4684/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Chanchal Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-3 MohallaMazid, 14, AayakarBhawan

Ward No.25, Rohtak, Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana – 124001

Haryana – 124507 (cid:830)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BICPB3122P

Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. P.K. Jain, CA Ms. Vrishti Jain, CA

Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.

DR

Date of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

O R D E R

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated

26.06.2025 of Ld. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

Page | 2 ITA No.4684/Del/2025 Chanchal Bansal (AY:2019-20)

(NFAC),DELHI (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1077830740(1)arising out of the assessment order dated 24.03.2022 u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi,for

AY: 2013-14.

2. At the time of arguments ld. Counsel has pointed out raising the additional ground that the assessment is not completed in accordance with procedure established under the Act and it was submitted that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. It comes up that assessee’s return was filed on 31.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,98,600/- and on the basis of information that assessee has made credit entries amounting to Rs.51,28,000/- in respect of bogus LTCG from sale of shares during the year under consideration the case of assessee was reopened by notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2021. On going through the assessment order we find that there is no mention of any notice u/s 143(2) being issued and there is mere mention of notices u/s 142(1)

of the Act issued on 28.11.2021 and 23.01.2022.

Page | 3 ITA No.4684/Del/2025 Chanchal Bansal (AY:2019-20)

3. The ld. DR has defended the action of not issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on the basis that as assessee had not filed return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act so there was no requirement of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of

the Act.

4. It comes up from the order of ld. First Appellate Authority that assessee did not file her return of income u/s 147/148 in view of prevailing Covid-19 pandemic. However, she requested assessing officer to treat the original return filed on 31.03.2014 as the return filed in response to Section 148 of the Act. At page 9 of the paper book copy of letter dated 04.03.2022 has been filed in which assessee had mentioned in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 23.01.2022 that the return filed on 31.03.2014 may be considered

to be return filed u/s 148 of the Act.

5. As, we go through the assessment order, we find that the income as per return filed on 31.03.2014 of Rs.1,98,600/- has been taken for making additions and calculating total income assessed. Thus, very apparently the assessing officer has taken the returned income only. The Coordinate Bench in the case DCIT Vs. Ashutosh Foods vide ITA No. 234/Del/2025 in which one of us, the judicial member, was also in the coram, had considered the

Page | 4 ITA No.4684/Del/2025 Chanchal Bansal (AY:2019-20)

contention of department that as no return of income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, so non-compliance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not detrimental. The Bench had decided the issue against the department by

following findings:

“3. Thus the case of department as per the AO and the ld. DR is that as assesse has not filed ROI in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act so non compliance of notice 143(2) of the Act is not detrimental. But the law seems to be otherwise settled and extensively discussed in a co-ordinate bench decision in Anil Aggarwal HUF versus ITO, Ward 28