Bilasa Medicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur, heard the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC dated 15.01.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee challenged the assessment on the ground that the statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur, whereas the assessment under Section 143(3) was ultimately completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur without issuing a fresh notice under Section 143(2). According to the assessee, the assessment was completed by a different Assessing Officer who had not issued the mandatory statutory notice.
The Tribunal observed that an identical issue had been considered by the Delhi High Court in Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT, wherein it was held that issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is a sine qua non for framing an assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal reproduced portions of that judgment, including its discussion of decisions relating to the mandatory nature of notice under Section 143(2), the jurisdictional consequence of its absence, and the distinction between failure to issue notice and defects in service of notice.
The Tribunal also referred to its earlier decision in Anil Kumar Parekh Vs. ITO, where it had held that failure to issue and serve notice under Section 143(2) rendered a reassessment order invalid, bad in law and void ab initio. That decision relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT. The Tribunal reproduced the relevant observations from those decisions regarding the mandatory requirement of notice under Section 143(2).
