Komma Reddy Satyanarayan Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Belated Return Still a Return-292BB Can’t Cure Total Absence of 143(2): Assessment Void
The Hyderabad ITAT allowed the Assessee’s appeal and quashed the ex-parte assessment framed u/s 144, holding that non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a fatal jurisdictional defect. Although the Assessee had filed the return belatedly on 13-10-2019, it was filed during the pendency of assessment proceedings pursuant to notice u/s 142(1) and therefore constituted a valid return in the eyes of law.
Once a return is filed—whether original or belated—the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to frame an assessment without issuing mandatory notice u/s 143(2). The Tribunal rejected Revenue’s contention that a return filed beyond the time prescribed u/s 139(4) is non-est, relying on settled law that delay may attract interest but does not render the return invalid.
Following Coordinate Bench rulings and binding precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Tribunal held that Section 292BB cannot cure complete absence of a 143(2) notice, and participation by the Assessee does not validate such an assessment. Consequently, the assessment order dated 26-11-2019 making addition of ₹1.81 crore u/s 69A was quashed, and other grounds were left open.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERBAD
This appeal is filed by Ms. Komma Reddy Satyanarayan Reddy (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 26.08.20925 for the A.Y.2017-18.
