ITO vs Gennext Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal by the Revenue is emanating from the order dated 7.7.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-4/10440/2018-19. Assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward 10(1), New Delhi passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) vide order dated 24.12.2018 relevant to assessment year 2011-12.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the year assessment year 2011-12 on 30.9.2011, declaring a total income of Rs. 17,810. The AO received information from the Investigation wing that the assessee received an amount of Rs. 2.50 crore in cash from one Rajbir Singh on 27-10-2010 and the said amount was not declared in the return of income. In terms of clause (b) of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Act, the AO reopened the assessment proceedings after recording reasons and obtaining approval of the appropriate authority and a notice under section 148 dated 21-3-2018 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee filed return in response to notice under section 148 on 26-11-2018 declaring the same income as per original return. The AO concluded the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 2.50 crore under section 69A by an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 24-12-2018. Against the aforesaid addition of the AO, assessee appealed filed before the CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 7.7.2025 has allowed the appeal of the assessee after discussing various case laws on the jurisdictional point that where no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is issued to the assessee, the assessment is bad in law and thus he quashed the assessment order by allowing the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that notice under section 143(2) was not served upon the assessee and, therefore, the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 was invalid and void ab initio, whereas issuance / service of notice under section 143(2) was not required in the present case, since no return of income was filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act.

None appeared on behalf of the assesssee.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the facts and circumstance of the case. It is noted that in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 21.3.2018, assessee vide his letter dated 26.11.2018 has intimated that assessee filed its original return of income on 30.9.2011 which may be treated as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, it is noted that CIT(A) observed from the order sheets of assessment proceedings that there is no entry for issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and assessment order has been framed without issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act in this case. In view of above, it reveals that notice u/s. 143(2) was not served upon the assessee, thus, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that since notice u/s. 143(2) was not served upon the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was rightly held as invalid and thus quashed, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the revenue. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 324 ITR 372 (2010) (SC) wherein, it has held that in the absence of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed

As regards the other issues of jurisdictional as well as on merits, since we have already adjudicated the issue of jurisdiction against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, thus, we hold the other pleadings have become academic and accordingly dismissed as such.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.