Facts of the Case
The
assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008–09, which was
initially accepted under Section 143(1). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer
initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 on the ground of escaped
income. However, the notice under Section 148 was admittedly never served upon
the assessee.
Subsequently,
notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee appeared
through its Authorized Representative and informed the Assessing Officer that
the original return filed earlier should be treated as the return in response
to Section 148 proceedings.
The
Assessing Officer completed reassessment and made an addition of ₹1 crore under
Section 68 as unexplained cash credits. The assessee challenged the
reassessment on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after
treating the original return as the return pursuant to Section 148. The
Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, following judicial precedents. The
Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Delhi High Court.
Issues Involved
- Whether issuance of
notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory after reassessment proceedings
are initiated under Section 148?
- Whether failure to
issue such notice invalidates the reassessment proceedings?
- Whether Section 292BB
can cure the complete absence of issuance of notice under Section 143(2)?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)
- The Revenue contended
that non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) should not invalidate
reassessment proceedings.
- It relied on earlier
judgments to argue that the defect was procedural in nature.
- It was argued that
under Section 292BB, since the assessee participated in the proceedings
without objection, it could not later challenge the reassessment on
technical grounds.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)
- The assessee argued
that issuance of notice under Section 143(2) after filing the return in
response to Section 148 is mandatory and jurisdictional.
- Absence of such notice
goes to the root of the reassessment proceedings.
- Section 292BB applies
only to defects in service of notice and cannot cure total absence of
notice.
- Reliance was placed on
the Supreme Court judgment in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon and other High Court
precedents.
Court Findings / Order
The Delhi
High Court upheld the ITAT’s order and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The
Court held:
- Notice under Section
143(2) is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings under Section 148.
- Once the assessee
states that the original return be treated as the return filed in response
to Section 148, the Assessing Officer must issue a fresh notice under
Section 143(2).
- Failure to issue such
notice is a jurisdictional defect and renders the reassessment invalid.
- Section 292BB cannot
cure complete failure to issue notice; it only cures defects in service of
notice already issued.
- Therefore, the
reassessment order was unsustainable in law.
Important Clarification by the Court
The Court
clearly distinguished between:
Failure to
issue notice
(jurisdictional defect – fatal)
and
Failure in service of notice (curable under Section 292BB).
This distinction was treated as fundamental in determining validity of reassessment proceedings.
Sections Involved
- Section 143(1) –
Processing of Return
- Section 143(2) – Notice
for Scrutiny Assessment
- Section 142(1) –
Inquiry Before Assessment
- Section 148 –
Reassessment / Income Escaping Assessment
- Section 68 –
Unexplained Cash Credits
- Section 292BB – Deemed Service of Notice
Link to download the order -.https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2015:DHC:8689-DB/VIB14102015ITA5192015.pdf
Disclaimer
This
content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only.
Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It
is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The
author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this
content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools
0 Comments
Leave a Comment