आदेश / O R D E R

PER SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M :

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. The brief facts as emanating from the record are that the assessee is a company engaged in real estate business. The assessee filed return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [herein after ‘the Act’] on 18.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.22,940/-. The said return was processed vide an intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 04.03.2016. On an information related to High Risk CRIU/VRU, the AO formed his reasons for re-opening the assessment that income charegable to tax has escaped and issued notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s. 148 of the Act. According to the AO that the assessee filed return of income on 31.01.2022 belatedly in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act issued asking the assessee to submit details and in response to which the assessee filed submissions dated 16.03.2022 which is reproduced in page no. 8 to 16 of the assessment order. The AO found the said explanation as not acceptable and proceeded to add an amount of Rs.2,80,00,000/- on account of Manikaran Marketing Pvt Ltd and Rs.50,00,000/- on account of M/s. Pramodanah Goods Pvt Ltd u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit vide his order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act. The assessee having being aggrieved by the order of the AO challenged the same before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) reproduced reply dated 11.09.2023 in para no. 5.1 from page nos. 4 to 11 and reply dated 23.03.2022 in para no. 5.2 from page nos. 12 to 22 and another reply dated 19.08.2024 in para no. 5.3 from page nos. 23 to 30. The ld.CIT(A) found the said explanation as not acceptable and confirmed the view of the AO in making addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Not satisfied with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us.

3. The ld.AR, Shri. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate, submits that the assessee raised ground no.4 challenging the action of the ld.CIT(A) in failing to appreciate that the re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act is void ab initio, since no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was ever issued prior to the completion of re-assessment. He submits that the issue raised in ground no.4 goes to the root of the matter and no new facts are required to be examined as such it was raised before the ld.CIT(A). He prayed to take up ground no.4 as a preliminary issue and adjudicate the same.

4. The ld.DR, Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT, reported no objection.

5. In view of the submissions of the ld.AR and ld.DR and with their consent, we proceed to adjudicate ground no.4 as a preliminary issue.

6. The ld.AR submits that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued during the course of re-assessment proceedings and drew our attention to the para 7.1.1 of the impugned order. He argued that the assessee has filed return of income belatedly in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the AO was not justified in treating the said return as non-est and framing the re-assessment without issuing the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He argued vehemently that it is a settled and trite proposition of law that even where the assessee files the return of income belatedly in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the AO is mandatorily required to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act prior to completion of re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Further, he submits that much prior to the completion of re assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed its return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the AO was statutorily obliged to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He argued vehemently that failure to do so renders the impugned re-assessment order invalid and void ab initio and drew our attention