AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 arises against the Co mmissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-29 (for short, ‘CIT(A)’),New De lhi’s order dated 15.10.2025 passed in order No. 10159/2012-13, invo lving pro ceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 3 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
We notice at the outset with the able assistance from both the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has quashed the impugned assessment dated 25.03.2022 for want of a valid section 143(2) notice; reading as under:
“5.Ground No. 5: The appellant in its submissions, has contended that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 10.01.2022 was issued by AO beyond the statutory time period prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5.1It is noted that for the relevant A.Y. 2013-14, in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 12.01.2021, the appellant filed his return of income on 19.02.2021. As per relevant provisions of Act for the year under consideration, the notice u/s 143(2) needs to be issued within six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. Accordingly, the statutory time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) in the instant case was 30.09.2021, whereas the AO could be able to issue the said notice on 10.01.2022. This delay violates the statutory time bar, rendering the notice invalid.
5.2The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the V. R. Educational Trust case emphasized that strict compliance with the requirement of issuing a valid notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory for both original assessments and reassessments u/s 147/148. The Court rejected the Department's contention that a notice u/s 142(1) could substitute for a Section 143(2) notice. It held that without a valid and timely Section 143(2) notice, assessment or reassessment proceedings are invalid and liable to be quashed. The Court referred to precedents including CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling in Asst. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon to highlight the mandatory nature of the Section 143(2) notice. It also cited the Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. case, where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court quashed reassessment proceedings due to the non-issuance of a valid Section 143(2) notice within the prescribed time.
5.3In the light of the above discussion and judicial precedents cited, it is held that the notice u/s 143(2) issued in the instant case is time barred therefore, the assessment framed pursuant thereto u/s 147 stands quashed being void ab initio, bad in law and barred by limitation. As such this part of grounds of appeal is allowed.
6.Since the appeal is allowed on limitation grounds, remaining grounds of appeal are therefore, not adjudicated upon.
7.In the result, the appeal of the appellant is hereby allowed.”
We make it clear that the issue already stands settled in the assessee’s favour and against the department that despite the fact that the time limitation for the learned Assessing Officer to issue section 143(2) notice was up to 30.09.2021, the same got initiated on 10.01.2022 only. This being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly quashed the impugned assessment going by hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC)(supra). The Revenue fails in his sole substantive ground therefore.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.