Case Law Details
Sanjay Kumar Badure Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Hyderabad ITAT Quashes Reassessment: No Notice Under Section 143(2), Entire Assessment Held Void
The Hyderabad ITAT quashed the reassessment framed under sections 147/144/144B, holding that the Assessing Officer could not complete the reassessment without issuing a mandatory notice under section 143(2) after the assessee had filed a return in response to the notice under section 148. The assessee had filed a return declaring nil income pursuant to the reopening notice, but the Assessing Officer ignored the return and proceeded to make an addition of ₹54.01 lakh under section 69A towards cash deposits.
The Revenue argued that since the return was filed beyond the time prescribed in the notice under section 148, it was non-est and therefore no notice under section 143(2) was required. Rejecting this contention, the Tribunal held that a return filed in response to a section 148 notice, even if delayed, remains a valid return during the pendency of assessment proceedings and cannot be ignored. Once such a return is filed, the Assessing Officer is statutorily required to issue a notice under section 143(2) before framing the reassessment.
The Tribunal relied on several High Court decisions and its own earlier rulings, reiterating that a return filed pursuant to section 148 is to be treated in the same manner as a return filed under section 139 for the purpose of assessment proceedings. Therefore, failure to issue a notice under section 143(2) strikes at the very root of the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction and is not a mere procedural irregularity.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the reassessment order suffered from lack of valid jurisdiction and quashed the entire assessment. Having annulled the reassessment on this legal ground, it did not examine the merits of the addition relating to cash deposits claimed to be from the assessee’s gunny bag manufacturing business.
Even in reassessment proceedings, once an assessee files a return in response to a section 148 notice, issuance of a section 143(2) notice is mandatory. Failure to do so renders the entire reassessment void ab initio.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERBAD
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 28/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 17/01/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Id. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in sustaining the assessment order in spite of the fact that the AO/NaFAC has not issued jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) of the Act, as the Appellant has filed his return of income. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessment made is without jurisdiction and bad in law and void abinitio.
3. The ld. CIT(A) erred is sustaining the validity of initiation of proceedings by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the circular issued by CBDT in violation of the provisions of section 151A of the Act.
4. Without prejudice, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.54,01,000 as unexplained cash u/s.69A of the Act.
5. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the sources for the cash deposits are out of appellants business income from manufacturing of gunny bags.
6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on the information that the assessee during the subject year had made substantial cash deposits of Rs. 54,01,200/- in his bank account maintained with M/s. Renukamata Multistate Co-operative Urban Credit Society Limited, initiated proceedings under section 148A of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2023, was issued by the AO. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 11/10/2023, declaring NIL income.
3. Thereafter, the AO, after taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 54,01,200/- made during the year under consideration in his bank account held with M/s. Renukamata Multistate Co-operative Urban Credit Society Limited added the entire amount, treating it as having been sourced from his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO, vide his order dated 17/01/2024, passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.54,01,000/-.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success.
5. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.
6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions.
7. Shri A V Raghuram, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Elaborating on the reasons leading the delay, the Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee, dated 06/04/2026 wherein it is deposed that immediately on receipt of the impugned order of the CIT(A), the assessee had approached his Chartered Accountant and requested him to take further necessary action with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. However, as the Chartered Accountant of the assessee was pre-occupied with the audit work and filing of returns of income, he lost sight of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. Thereafter, when the assessee enquired about his appeal, the Chartered Accountant suggested him to engage the present Authorized Representative, who involving no further loss of time had filed the present appeal before the Tribunal which by the time invovled a delay of 41 days. The Ld. AR submitted that that since the reason for the delay in filing of the present appeal is not attributable to the assessee, as well as there is no negligence act on the part of the assessee, the delay may be condoned. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr-DR did not seriously object to the seeking of the condonation of delay.
8. We have given thoughtful consideration and are of firm conviction that, as the delay in filing of the present appeal had crept in for reasons beyond the control of the assessee, i.e., due to the change in the counsel for the assessee, merits to be condoned. Our aforesaid view is supported by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while setting aside the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of the delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay of 58 days involved in the filing of the present appeal.
9. Shri A V Raghuram, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that as per instructions he does not seek to press ground of appeal No.3. We thus, in terms of the aforesaid concession, dismiss the Ground of appeal No.3 as not pressed.
10. Coming to the controversy at hand, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee, pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2023, had admittedly filed his return of income on 11/10/2023, the AO had thereafter proceeded with and framed the assessment vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/01/2024, without issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO pursuant to the return of income that was filed by the assessee on 11/10/2023, has taken us through the observations/chart culled out by the AO at Page-2 of his assessment order. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2023, had filed his return of income in the course of the assessment proceedings on 11/10/2023, though belatedly, the AO had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in proceeding with and framing the assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR to fortify his contention had drawn our attention to the order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/01/2024. The Ld. AR submitted that as the AO, in the absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction, had framed the assessment, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said ground itself. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention, had drawn support from the orders of the ITAT, Hyderabad “A” Bench in Nisha Kapistalamchetlur, Tirupati vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupati in ITA No.1935 & 1936/Hyd/2025, dated 30/03/2026. Further, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to Para 2 of the assessment order, wherein the AO had observed that the assessee had failed to file his return of income in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2023, within the prescribed time period.
11. Per contra, Dr. Sachin Kumar, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”). The Ld. Sr-DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that as the assessee had failed to file the return of income within the prescribed period contemplated under section 148 of the Act, the AO has rightly held the said return of income as non-est and refrained from taking cognizance of the same. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. Sr-DR submitted that as the “third proviso” to section 148 of the Act has been made available on the statute vide Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f., 01/04/2022, as per which a return of income filed beyond the prescribed time period allowed under section 148 of the Act shall not be deemed to be a return of income under section 139 of the Act, the AO had rightly refrained from considering the delayed return of income filed by the assessee on 11/10/2023 and framed the assessment vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/01/2024.
12. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below.
13. As observed herein above, the controversy involved in the present appeal is double faceted, viz., (i) that as to whether or not a return of income filed in response to the notice issued by the AO under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2023 after the lapse of the prescribed time period is to be construed as a return of income filed by the assessee?; and (ii) that as to whether or not pursuant to the return of income filed by an assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act by the AO is mandatory?. We find that both the aforesaid issues had been deliberated upon at length by the Tribunal, i.e., ITAT, Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Sanghi Textiles Private Limited vs. ITO, ITA No1311/Hyd/2025, dated 07/01/2026, wherein it was held as under:
19. Apropos the first issue, i.e., as to whether or not the return of income filed by an assessee beyond the prescribed time period allowed vide the notice under section 148 of the Act is to be construed as a return of income, we find that the said issue had been answered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 490 (Kerala). The indulgence of the Hon’ble High Court was, inter alia, sought for adjudicating the following substantial question of law.
“Whether the return filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1)/139(4) or Section 142(1)/148 can be held as non-est in the eyes of law and has invalidated for the purpose of deciding exemption u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?”
The Hon’ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and, held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessment are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. As in the present case before us, the “return of income” filed by the assessee company in compliance to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2021 was filed on 21.10.2021, i.e during the pendency of the assessment proceedings which had thereafter culminated vide order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022, therefore, we are of the firm conviction that there was no justification for the A.O. to have held the said “return of income” as invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. Also, support is drawn from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of CIT Vs. Nagendra Prasad, (2023) 156 Taxmann.com 191 (Patna). The Hon’ble High Court, had observed that where the notice was issued by the A.O. u/s 148 requiring the assessee to file his return of income within thirty days but the said return was filed after eight and a half months, since the return was filed by assessee in response to the said notice, though delayed, there should have been a notice issued under Section 143(2) as the requirement to issue notice could not be dispensed with. Accordingly, based on our aforesaid observations, we are of the view that the “return of income” filed by the assessee company on 21.10.2021 i.e., in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021, though delayed, did not cease to be a “return of income” in the eyes of the law.
20. We shall now deal with the core issue involved in the present appeal, i.e., whether the AO, in response to the return of income filed by the assessee company for the subject year, i.e., AY 2014-15, on 21/10/2021, in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, before proceeding with and framing the impugned assessment was statutorily obligated to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. We find that section 143(2) of the Act contemplates that where the return of income has been furnished under section 139 of the Act, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the AO or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence, which the assessee may rely in support of the return of income. Although, at the first blush it appeared that issuance of the notice under section 143(2) of the Act is restricted only in a case where the return of income is filed by the assessee under section 139 of the Act, or in response to a notice under subsection (1) of section 142, and, thus, cannot be stretched to a case where the return of income is filed in response to a notice under section 148 of the Act, but we stand corrected on our aforesaid view. We say so, for the reason that section 148 of the Act (as was available on the statute at the relevant point of time) contemplated that the provisions of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139 of the Act. Accordingly, a return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act is to be treated as a return of income required to be furnished under section 139 of the Act. We thus, are of the view that as the return of income filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act is to be construed as a return of income filed under section 139 of the Act with all the provisions of the Act to be applied in the similar manner as it would apply to a return of income filed under section 139 of the Act, therefore, the AO to ensure that the assessee had not under stated the income disclosed by him in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act remains under a statutory obligation to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, i.e., in a similar manner as if he would have done in response to a return of income furnished under section 139 or under section 142(1) of the Act.
21. Although the Ld. CIT-DR had tried to impress upon us that for framing of assessment under section 148 of the Act, there is no obligation cast upon the AO to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, but we are unable to concur with the same. We say so, for two reasons, viz., (i) as observed by us herein above, the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act is to be construed as if it is a return of income filed under section 139 of the Act; and (ii) that section 148 of the Act though provides for a notice to be issued to the assessee calling upon him to file his return of income, but the machinery for framing of the assessment is not provided in the said section and for the said limited purpose the return of income so filed by the assessee is to be construed as a return of income filed under section 139 of the Act, and, thus, for framing of the assessment pursuant to the return of income filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatorily required to be issued.
22. We find that the Ld. CIT-DR had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT (supra) and had emphasized upon the fact that though the same was rendered on the issue as to whether or not a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was mandatory in the context of an assessment under section 153A/153C of the Act, but the same is to be similarly applied with all the force on the same terms for framing of an assessment pursuant to the return of income filed by an assessee in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR, to drive home his contention, had vehemently emphasized that section 153A(1)(a) of the Act contemplates that the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139. The Ld. AR submitted that the same language has been employed by the legislature in section 148 of the Act. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR had tried to impress upon us that the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of B. Kubendran vs. DCIT (supra), wherein it was held that for framing an assessment under section 153A, the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory will equally apply with the same force for framing of an assessment on a return of income filed by an assessee in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act.
23. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. CIT-DR, which at the threshold of hearing appeared to be very appealing, but, are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. We say so, for the reason that as observed by us at length herein above, section 148 of the Act can though facilitate calling upon the assessee to file his return of income in response thereto, but does not take within its fold the machinery and the procedure for framing of the assessment for which the legislature in all is wisdom had specifically provided that the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act is to be treated as a return of income under section 139 of the Act, which, thus, would entail issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act for framing of the assessment in the hands of the assessee.
24. Our aforesaid view that a notice under section 143(2) is mandatorily required to be issue where the assessee has filed a return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All). It was observed that, where the return of income is filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the AO, before proceeding to decide the controversy with regard to the escaped assessment, is mandatorily required to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Madras). The Hon’ble High Court had observed that where the assessee had filed a return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, but no notice under section 143(2) was issued after filing of the said return of income, then, the same is a violation of the mandatory provisions of law, and therefore, the re-assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act was a nullity and was to be quashed. Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of PCIT vs. Kamala Devi Sharma, ITA No. 197/2018, dated 10/07/2018, had observed that the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in reassessment proceedings, prior to finalizing reassessment order cannot be condoned by referring to section 292BB of the Act and was fatal to the order of the reassessment. Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Amec Foster Wheeler Iberia SLU-India Project Office vs DCIT (2023) 148 taxmann.com 124 (Madras) has held that where the AO did not issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act upon the assessee, then initiation of reassessment proceedings, order rejecting the assessee’s objection against assumption of jurisdiction for reopening and also reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) were to be quashed. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Nagendra Prasad (2013) 156 Taxmann.com 19 (Punjab & Haryana) had observed that where the notice was issued by AO under section 148 of the Act requiring the assessee to file a return within 30 days, but the said return was filed after 81/2 months, since return of income was filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, though delayed, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as the requirement to issue notice cannot be dispensed with. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. S.G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 761 (Delhi) had, inter alia, held that where the assessee company had filed the return income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the AO was required to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act for framing the assessment. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sapthagiri Finance & Investments vs. ITO (2012) 25 taxmann.com 341 (Madras) had, inter alia, held that where the AO found that there was a problem in the return of income filed by the assessee under section 148 of the Act, which required an explanation, then he ought to have followed up by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. Dart Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 460 ITR 532 (Delhi)(HC) had observed that the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory for framing of an assessment. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs. Salarpur Cold Storage, [2015] 228 Taxman 48 (Allahabad) after relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC), held that the requirement of issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory and cannot be brought within the meaning of a procedural irregularity. Apart from that, we find that the “Special Bench” of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla vs. ITO (2005) 1 SOT 934 (Delhi) (SB), had held that return of income filed pursuant to notice under section 148 of the Act must assume and treated to be a return of income filed under section 139 of the Act and the assessment must thereafter be made under section 143 or 144 of the Act after complying with the mandatory provisions. Also, it was observed that pursuant to the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, it is incumbent upon the assessing authority to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed time period.
25. Considering the aforesaid host of judicial pronouncements, wherein it has been held that pursuant to a return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, it is incumbent on the part of the AO to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act for framing the assessment, we respectfully follow the same.
26. Before parting, we may herein observe that though the Ld. CIT-DR in order to buttress his claim that for framing of an assessment pursuant to the return of income filed by an assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, no obligation is cast upon the AO to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, had relied upon two judicial pronouncements, viz., (i) B. Kubendran vs. DCIT (2021) 126 com107 (Madras); and (ii) Ashok Chadda vs. ITO (2011) 37 ITR 399 (Delhi), but considering the fact that there are judgments of the non-jurisdictional High Courts taking a view to the contrary, i.e., the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory for framing of an assessment based on the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, we being guided by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC), wherein it is held that If two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted, respectfully follow the latter view .
27. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that pursuant to the notice issued by the AO under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2021, though the assessee company had filed its return of income in response thereto on 21/10/2021 declaring NIL income, but as the AO without issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Act had proceeded with and framed the impugned assessment vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022, therefore, he had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction and framing the impugned assessment, which, thus cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part.
28. As we have quashed the assessment for want of a valid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, we refrain from adverting to and adjudicating the other grounds based on which the impugned assessment order has been assailed before us, which, thus, are left open.
29. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.”
14. In our view, as the facts and the issue involved in the present appeal remain the same as were involved in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1311/hyd/2025, dated 07/01/2026, we respectfully follow the same.
15. Before parting, we may herein observe that though it is the Ld. DR’s claim before us that as the “3rdproviso” to section 148 of the Act has been made available on the statute vide Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f., 01/04/2022, as per which a return of income filed beyond the prescribed time period allowed under section 148 of the Act shall not be deemed to be a return of income under section 139 of the Act, the AO had rightly refrained from considering the delayed return of income filed by the assessee on 11/10/2023 in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27/03/2023 and framed the assessment vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/01/2024, but we find the said contention to be misconceived. We find that the “3rd proviso” to Section 148 of the Act, as per which a return of income filed beyond the prescribed time period allowed under section 148 of the Act shall not be deemed to be a return of income under section 139 of the Act, has been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f 01/04/2023, and thus, was not applicable to the case of the assessee before us, the same will not carry the case of the revenue any further. Accordingly, based on our aforesaid observations, we concur with the Ld. AR that the AO had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction and framing the assessment vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 27/03/2023, without considering the return of income filed by the assessee on 11/10/2023, and dispensing with the statutory requirement of issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act.
16. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, quash the assessment framed by the AO for want of a valid assumption of jurisdiction. As we have quashed the assessment in terms of our aforesaid observations, we refrain from adverting to and adjudicating the other issues based on which the impugned addition made by the AO has been assailed before us, which, thus, are left open.
17. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2026.
Author Bio
