Radhika Garg Vs ITO (ITAT Agra)
Reassessment Void—Return Filed to 148 but No 143(2) Issued; AO Took Cognizance of Return Yet Skipped Mandatory Notice
The Assessee appealed against the Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai’s order dated 24.06.2024 confirming reassessment u/s 144 r.w.s.147 dated 29.11.2019. There was a 68-day delay, which Tribunal condoned in the interest of justice.
AO had reopened assessment based on information of ₹12,32,000 cash deposit in SBI account. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2019. The Assessee filed her return on 22.11.2019. Thereafter, AO issued only 142(1) notices and completed reassessment u/s 144/147 on 29.11.2019, without issuing the mandatory notice u/s 143(2).
Tribunal held that the AO had consciously acted upon the belated return—as reflected from the computation where reassessment began with the returned income of ₹1,91,590—and once AO takes cognizance of such return, notice u/s 143(2) becomes compulsory.
Relying on binding precedents:
- Rajiv Sharma (336 ITR 678, All HC)—absence of 143(2) after return to 148 renders reassessment invalid;
- Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362, SC)—143(2) is mandatory;
- Laxman Das Khandelwal (266 Taxman 171, SC)—292BB cannot cure complete absence of 143(2) notice.
Applying these, Tribunal held the entire reassessment void ab initio, even though the return was filed just seven days before completion of reassessment. Since the jurisdictional requirement was not met, the reassessment could not survive.
Other grounds became academic.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AGRA
