Satya Prakash Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Section 143(2) – Participation Cannot Create Jurisdiction Where Notice Never Existed: ITAT Quashes Reassessment Despite Assessee’s Return Being Unverified
Summary: The Delhi ITAT considered an important jurisdictional issue concerning complete non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) in reassessment proceedings. The AO sought to justify the omission on the ground that the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 was not e-verified & was therefore invalid. Rejecting this contention, the Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the AO’s direction by filing the return & could not be penalised for its non-e-verification. Since no notice u/s 143(2) was ever issued, the assumption of jurisdiction itself was invalid & the entire reassessment was quashed.
Facts
The AO passed an assessment order dated 24.03.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B, making an addition of ₹53.50 lakh u/s 69A towards alleged unexplained cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged the jurisdiction on two grounds. First, notice u/s 148 issued on 02.04.2022 was allegedly barred by limitation. Secondly, although the assessee had filed his return on 30.04.2022 in response to notice u/s 148, the AO had never issued the mandatory notice u/s 143(2). The assessee also challenged the addition on merits, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
