BIMLA DEVI PROP. M/S SH.KRISHNA COTTON & OIL MILLS,BHIWANI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURGAON

ITA 3212/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Bimla Devi Pro. M/s. Sh. Krishna Cotton & Oil Mills against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon, which was itself based on an order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention in the appeal was the absence of a notice under section 143(2) during the reassessment proceedings, which the assessee argued was essential for the validity of the reassessment. The tribunal, referencing decisions from the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, upheld the assessee's argument, leading to the quashing of the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34633 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon Limited, Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: LALIT MOHAN
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 292BB; 143(2)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3212/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) Bimla Devi Pro. M/s. Sh. Krishna Cotton & Oil Mills, H.No. 55, Word-09, Backside Ashram Road, Sainipura, Charkhi Dadri, New Delhi-127306 PAN No. AHXPD4018R vs DCIT Central Circle -1 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by Sh. Subhash Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 01/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 01/01/2025 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as ‘CITA(A)’] in Ap. No. 10219/2018-19 for A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No.3168/Del/2024 Bimla Devi Vs. DCIT Page 2 of 6 dated 27.07.2023 against the order passed by Assessing Officer, New Delhi u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 28.12.2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At the outset, there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by 279 days. Considering the reasons adduced by the assessee in the condonation delay petition, we are inclined to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The learned AR before us drew our attention to ground No.2 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act stood issued to the assessee in the reassessment proceedings. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The original return of income for A.Y.2011-12 was filed by the assessee on 25.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.7,21,260/-. Later this assessment was sought to ITA No.3168/Del/2024 Bimla Devi Vs. DCIT Page 3 of 6 be reopened vide issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2018. In response to the said notice, the assessee vide letter dated 11.12.2018 submitted that return filed by the assessee originally u/s.139(1) of the Act be treated as a return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Hence, for all practical purposes, this letter dated 11.12.2018 tantamounts to filing of return by the assessee in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. 5. We find that the learned CIT(A) in page 111 of his order categorically admits that no notice u/s.143 (2) of the Act was issued by the learned AO in the reassessment proceedings. The learned CIT(A) while observing so, also stated that since no return of income has been filed by the assessee, there is no requirement for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act by the learned AO. 6. In view of our aforesaid observations that return has indeed been filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, and admittedly no notice u/s.143(2) has been issued in the reassessment proceedings pursuant to the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the reassessment ITA No.3168/Del/2024 Bimla Devi Vs. DCIT Page 4 of 6 order framed u/s.143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28.12.2018 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.69,11,309/- would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law and had to be declared void- ab-initio. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon Limited reported in 321 ITR 362 (SC). Further the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of in the case of Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT reported in 167 taxmann.com 90 (Delhi) had categorically held that issuance of notice u/s.143 (2) of the Act is mandatory in reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and failure of issue notice u/s.143 (2) of the Act would render reassessment order invalid. The same would also be not curable in terms of section 292BB of the Act as non issuance of mandatory statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional defect. 7. Per contra, the learned DR craved our indulgence to place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, copy of which was promised to be given after the hearing. But no such order was filed. In any event, when the issue is already settled by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon’ble ITA No.3168/Del/2024 Bimla Devi Vs. DCIT Page 5 of 6 Supreme Court, the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court relied by the learned DR would not advance the case of the revenue either. Hence, the ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed and reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed. 8. Since the entire reassessment is quashed for non issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, the other regular grounds raised on merits need not to be adjudicated and they are left open. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.01.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:01/01/2025 Neha, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "