Ashok Kumar Tewari vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(1), New Delhi

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.11.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082627880(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 24.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, for AY: 2016-17.

On hearing both sides we find that primary contention of ld. Counsel for the assesse is that without serving a mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act the assessment has been completed. This has been countered by ld. DR by submitting that this ground was not raised before ld. CIT(A) and before the Tribunal also this ground is not taken specifically. It was also submitted that assessment has been completed u/s 144 of the Act and there was complete non-compliance on part of assesse. Written submissions were also filed by ld. DR, however, with regard to this issue there is no factual assertion that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was actually issued. 3. After taking into consideration the submissions and the material on record we find that at page Nos. 30-32 assessee has provided screen shots of the e-proceedings and the same reflect that notice u/s 148 was served on 29.07.2022 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were only issued, thus non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is established. We are of the considered view that ground No. 1 being a general ground wherein initiation of proceedings passing of order u/s 147 of the Act has been alleged to be illegal and void-ab-initio sufficiently covers the contentions as raised. 4. Now from the assessment order it is very clear that ld. AO has considered the return filed by the assessee and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, to make the computation of income. Thus ld. AO was very much aware of the return of assessee filed on 17.10.2016 being there. In, the reopening proceedings took, ld. AO has taken cognizance of same return. Thus it was essential for ld. AO to have issued the notice u.s 143(2) of the Act, to sustain the additions, over and above the returned income, on the basis of material relied during the assessment proceedings. It hardly make difference that assessment was concluded u/s 144 of the Act, as the challenge is of the assumption of jurisdiction, for re-assessment, without there being notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Reliance placed by assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT Versus Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC) is squarely applicable. 5. Thus the ground no. 1 is sustained and appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026.