Satya Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18. The assessment had originally been completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 24.11.2019.
The assessee raised both legal grounds and grounds on merits. At the outset, the assessee pressed the legal issue, submitting that if the same was decided in its favour, the grounds on merits would become academic.
The sole legal contention raised was that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act had been issued to the assessee before completion of the assessment under section 144. It was argued that issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement and a sine qua non for framing an assessment under sections 143(3) as well as 144 of the Act.
In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Shaily Juneja v. ACIT (2024) 167 taxmann.com 90, wherein it was held that failure to issue notice under section 143(2) vitiates the assessment proceedings due to a jurisdictional defect. The High Court had reiterated that absence of such notice renders the proceedings invalid and that this defect cannot be cured by section 292BB of the Act, which only deals with defects in service of notice and not failure to issue notice itself.
