Rakshit Estates Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi annuls assessment—New AO assuming jurisdiction must issue his own 143(2)- Absence of notice u/s 143(2) after transfer of jurisdiction renders entire order void
Delhi Tribunal annulled the entire assessment framed u/s 143(3), holding it invalid for want of jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2).
The company, engaged in real estate, had filed return declaring Nil income. Its case was initially picked for scrutiny by ITO Ward-2(2)(2), Ghaziabad, which issued notice u/s 143(2). Later, jurisdiction was transferred to ITO Ward-3(4), Gurgaon as per PAN address. However, no fresh notice u/s 143(2) was ever issued by the Gurgaon AO, who still proceeded to complete assessment on 29-12-2019 with an ad hoc addition of ₹62.43 lakh (20% of customer advances). CIT(A), NFAC upheld the addition.
Before ITAT, Assessee contended that the entire assessment was void ab initio as the officer who passed it never issued statutory notice. Tribunal accepted this legal ground, relying on the Raipur Bench ruling in Durga Manikanta Traders v. ITO (ITA 59/RPR/2019) & CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, holding that a new AO assuming jurisdiction must issue his own 143(2) notice; otherwise, proceedings are coram non judice.
Since the Gurgaon AO failed to do so, ITAT held the assessment order unsustainable in law, quashed the same, & allowed the appeal in full. Other grounds were rendered academic.
