Kamlesh Pramod Gandhi Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT: Reassessment Invalid for Non-Issue of Notice under Section 143(2) Even Though Return in Response to Section 148 Was Filed Belatedly
The Pune ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement once an assessee files a return in response to a notice under section 148, even if such return is filed beyond the time specified in the notice. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s contention that the return was “invalid” merely because it was filed belatedly and observed that the issue was squarely covered by its own earlier decision in the assessee’s case for AY 2014-15 on identical facts.
The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Patna High Court in Nagendra Prasad, the Delhi High Court in Jai Shiv Shankar Traders and Draft Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., and the Supreme Court rulings in Hotel Blue Moon and Laxman Das Khandelwal, reiterating that failure to issue a notice under section 143(2) after the filing of a return under section 148 renders the reassessment proceedings a nullity. It also held that the subsequent amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2022 regarding the time for filing returns under section 148 could not be retrospectively applied to AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and declared the reassessment orders for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 as invalid and without jurisdiction. Since the reassessments were quashed on this legal ground, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the additions on merits, treating them as infructuous.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
