Pooja Goel Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment for Non-Issuance of Sec.143(2) Notice – Assessment Held Void 143(2) Notice Mandatory Even for Belated ROI- Assessment Non-Est in Law
Background
- AO issued notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2022.
- Assessee filed return on 30.04.2022.
- AO framed reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B on 23.03.2023.
- Assessee challenged reassessment, citing no notice u/s 143(2) was issued.
Assessee’s Arguments
- Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) makes assessment invalid.
- Relied on ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (SC, 321 ITR 362) and recent ITAT Delhi ruling in ITO v. Artistic Finance Pvt. Ltd. (08.05.2025).
- Filing ROI beyond 30 days of s.148 notice does not dispense with requirement of s.143(2).
Revenue’s Stand
- Since assessee’s ROI was filed beyond time limit in s.148 notice, AO was not required to issue notice u/s 143(2).
- Relied on lower authorities’ findings & s.292BB deeming provisions.
Tribunal’s Observations/Decision
- Coordinate bench in Artistic Finance Pvt. Ltd. held reassessment without s.143(2) notice is null & void.
- Jurisdictional Delhi HC in PCIT v. Dart Infrabuild (P.) Ltd. (2023) & PCIT v. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (2015) confirmed that issuance of 143(2) notice is mandatory, irrespective of belated return.
- 292BB cures defects in service, not failure to issue notice.
- Thus, reassessment framed without 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional defect.
- ITAT held reassessment order dated 23.03.2023 non est in law.
- Entire assessment quashed.
- Assessee’s appeal allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
