Aravindan Vedhavaththiyar Singarachari Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case of Aravindan Vedhavaththiyar Singarachari vs. DCIT, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore addressed the importance of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act for a valid assessment. The assessee’s returns for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19 were reopened due to discrepancies in declared capital gains from property sales. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148, assuming jurisdiction, but failed to issue the required notice under Section 143(2). The assessee challenged this, arguing that without the notice, the reassessment proceedings were void. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the issuance and service of a notice under Section 143(2) after the filing of the return of income (ROI) is essential for completing a valid reassessment. The Tribunal noted that the AO’s failure to issue this notice rendered the reassessment invalid, as it violated procedural requirements. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that proper procedural adherence is crucial in income tax assessments.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These two appeals of the assessee are arising from the orders passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 08/03/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062260533(1) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 & DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/106226258(1) for AY 2018-19. Since issues involved in both the appeals are akin, we are deciding these appeals by common order. We will take AY 2016-17 as lead case and discussed the facts of the same for the sake of brevity.
