The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory when an assessee files a return of income in response to a notice under Section 148. Failure to issue this notice renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio for lack of valid jurisdiction.

ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 28/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 17/01/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2. The Id. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in sustaining the assessment order in spite of the fact that the AO/NaFAC has not issued jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) of the Act, as the Appellant has filed his return of income. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessment made is without jurisdiction and bad in law and void abinitio.

3. The ld. CIT(A) erred is sustaining the validity of initiation of proceedings by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the circular issued by CBDT in violation of the provisions of section 151A of the Act.

4. Without prejudice, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.54,01,000 as unexplained cash u/s.69A of the Act.

5. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the sources for the cash deposits are out of appellants business income from manufacturing of gunny bags.

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

2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on the information that the assessee during the subject year had made substantial cash deposits of Rs. 54,01,200/- in his bank account maintained with M/s. Renukamata Multistate Co-operative Urban Credit Society Limited, initiated proceedings under section 148A of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2023, was issued by the AO. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 11/10/2023, declaring NIL income.

3. Thereafter, the AO, after taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 54,01,200/- made during the year under consideration in his bank account held with M/s. Renukamata Multistate Co-operative Urban Credit Society Limited added the entire amount, treating it as having been sourced from his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO, vide his order dated 17/01/2024, passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.54,01,000/-.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success.

5. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions.

7. Shri A V Raghuram, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Elaborating on the reasons leading the delay, the Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee, dated 06/04/2026 wherein it is deposed that immediately on receipt of the impugned order of the CIT(A), the assessee had approached his Chartered Accountant and requested him to take further necessary action with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. However, as the Chartered Accountant of the assessee was pre-occupied with the audit work and filing of returns of income, he lost sight of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. Thereafter, when the as