DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi Light House (ITAT Delhi)
Reassessment Quashed for Want of Mandatory s.143(2) Notice –292BB Can’t Save Non-Issuance- Revenue’s Appeal Becomes Infructuous
Assessee, a tent-erection & lighting services partnership firm, was reassessed u/s 147 r.w.s 144/144B on allegation of bogus purchases from Vrindavan International Trade Pvt Ltd (₹41,82,341) & mismatch between Form 26AS receipts (₹14.60 Cr) & turnover in ITR (₹11.62 Cr). CIT(A) deleted additions; Revenue appealed. Assessee filed Cross Objection challenging the validity of reassessment itself for non-issuance of statutory notice u/s 143(2).
Tribunal examined assessment records & found:
- AO issued notice u/s 142(1) but no notice u/s 143(2) was ever issued.
- e-filing portal showed no record of any such notice.
- Revenue could not produce even a single document showing issuance or service.
- As per binding Delhi HC ruling in Dart Infra Pvt Ltd (2024) 166 taxmann.com 4, absence of s.143(2) notice is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural lapse. Section 292BB cannot cure failure to issue notice.
- Numerous precedents—Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (Del HC), Salarpur Cold Storage (All HC), SWIFT (Del HC), Sapthagiri Finance (Mad HC)—all hold that reassessment without s.143(2) is invalid.
Accordingly, Tribunal allowed the Cross Objection, quashed the reassessment, & set aside CIT(A)’s order. Liberty was given to Revenue to seek recall only if it later produces proof that s.143(2) was in fact issued & served. Since reassessment is void, Revenue’s appeal became infructuous & was dismissed.
