Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Reassessment Collapses Without 143(2) Notice – ITAT Pune Sends Cash Deposit Case Back to CIT(A)
Assessee, a trader in onions & food-grains, had not filed return for AY 2015-16. Based on information from Shri Renuka Mata Multi-State Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. about large cash deposits of ₹ 81.03 lakh, AO reopened the case u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B, treating the deposits as unexplained u/s 69A & assessed total income at ₹ 81.03 lakh.
Before CIT(A)/NFAC, Assessee contended that (i) no notice u/s 143(2) was issued, (ii) only 2 days were allowed for compliance, (iii) reopening was mechanical, & (iv) assessment ought to have been under s.153C since information arose from third-party search. CIT(A) upheld the reopening & addition, observing that since no valid return was on record when assessment was framed, issue of 143(2) was unnecessary.
Before Tribunal, Assessee relied on Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362 SC), CIT v. Nagendra Prasad (2023) 156 taxmann.com 19 Patna HC & Chand Bihari Agrawal (2023) 154 taxmann.com 245 Patna HC to argue that even if the return in response to s.148 is belated, notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory. It was further contended that reopening based merely on cash deposits is invalid & that faceless-assessment protocol u/s 144B was violated.
