Reassessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are null and void, and the failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by Section 292BB when the notice was never issued.

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal filed by the Revenue is arising out of order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080280541(1) dated 02.09.2025 against the assessment order passed by Dy. Commissioner of Income tax -14(2)(1), Mumbai u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2016 for A.Y. 2009-10.

2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are as under:

I. Ground on Jurisdiction - Notice to Non-Existent Entity (Assessee's Ground 1)

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding the reassessment proceedings and the consequential order dated 31.12.2016 to be without jurisdiction and void merely because the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in the name of the merged entity, M/s Jewelex International Pvt. Ltd.

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the successor-in-interest, M/s Jewelex India Pvt. Ltd. (the correct assessee), received the said notice, acknowledged it, filed objections, and actively participated throughout the reassessment proceedings, demonstrating full knowledge of the intended assessment.

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to apply the curative provision of Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which validates any notice that is not invalid by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission, if the assessment is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act and the judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are factually distinguishable as they do not adequately cover cases where the correct successor entity participated fully.

II. Ground on Procedural Defect - Non-Issue of Notice (Assessee's Ground 4)

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment order on the ground of non-issuance of a fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act subsequent to the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.

5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the mandatory and overriding applicability of Section 292BB of the Act, which explicitly deems the non-service of any notice (including section 143(2)) as waived where the assessee has appeared in the proceedings without challenging the defect.

6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, since the assessee actively participated by filing objections and appearing in the reassessment proceedings (as noted in the CIT(A)'s own order), the assessee is deemed to have waived the right to object to the non-service of the section 143(2) notice, and no prejudice was caused to the assessee.”

2.1. The two issues raised by the Revenue in its appeal are in respect of jurisdictional and procedural defects, in respect of the impugned reassessment proceedings carried out by the ld. AO for which relief has been granted by the ld. CIT(A).

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2009, reporting total loss at Rs. 46,23,695/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.5,99,03,753/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. Originally, assessment was completed under section 143(3), vide order dated 19.12.2011 with total loss assessed at Rs. 39,56,291/- and book profit at Rs.5,99,03,753/-. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up for re