AI Insights
The case revolves around an appeal by Jahangir Syed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which itself arose from an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer, which was challenged on grounds including the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 143(2) and the improper issuance of a notice under Section 142(1)(i). The Tribunal examined whether the return of income filed by the assessee in response to a notice under Section 148 was valid and whether the subsequent assessment was legally sustainable without the mandatory notice under Section 143(2).
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705602 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-06-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Judgement Text
"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.646/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. PAN : BXMPS2634A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Advocate. राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 O R D E R प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07.11.2023, 2 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 31.12.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating ground nos. 3 to 8 taken before him on the very issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.12.2019 is invalid and is without jurisdiction as no statutory notice u/s 143(2) had been issued. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld. AO erred in issuing the notice u/s 142(1)(i) of the Act dt. 06.12.2019 for calling for return of income beyond the time limit of six years and completing the scrutiny assessment on the basis of the said notice, which is invalid and is without jurisdiction. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dt. 31-12-2019 is invalid ab initio on the ground that no notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued as seen from the very assessment order. 6. Without prejudicial to ground nos. 1 to 4, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating ground nos. 9 to 18 taken before him on the non- applicability of the provisions of Section 45 r.w.s 50C of the Act. 7. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the details of litigation attached to the impugned property i.e., Civil suit in WP No. 26405/2012 that had been numbered as WP No. 484/2017 on the file of Telangana High Court had been duly submitted to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings on 19.12.2019. 8) a) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission of full details of litigation attached to the impugned sale to the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad before whom the appeal has been instituted. 3 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. 8) b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that full details of litigation attached to the impugned sale have been duly submitted before the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad on 18.03.2020 & 29.12.2020 through paper books during the course of hearing before him. 8) c) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in observing at Para no. 6 of his order that the appellant has not filed any documentary evidences to substantiate his claim. 9. The assessee may add, alter, or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O. observed that the assessee had during the subject year sold immovable properties ad measuring 315.69 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.563/1, situated at Amberpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad, vide document nos.2694/2011, 2695/2011 and 2696/2011 registered with Sub-Registrar Office, Hyderabad, dated 02.12.2011, respectively, for a consideration of Rs.9,45,000/-, the Fair Market Value (for short “FMV”) of which as per S.R.O. was Rs.78,93,000/-, but had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. 3. As is discernible from the record the assessee in response to a notice issued by the A.O. filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein he had offered his income only from “Other sources”. On being queried, it was the claim of the assessee that he 4 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. had not disclosed the income under the head “Capital Gains” pertaining to the aforementioned properties in the return of income, because the same being subject to litigation were under the possession of the Court and, thus, could not be considered as a transfer of property within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act. However, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee did not find favour with the A.O. The A.O. observed that a perusal of the sale deed revealed that the scheduled property was stated to be free from all defects and encumbrances. Apart from that, it was mentioned in the sale deed that if any defect in the linked documents or the title was found then the vendor shall indemnify to the vendee the FMV of the subject property as on the date of payment of the claim. 4. Accordingly, the A.O. held a conviction that the assessee had a clear title as on the date of transfer of property. Also, the A.O. was of the view that though the sale deed clearly mentioned that in case of any defects in the title, the vendee was entitled for indemnification to the extent of FMV of the property, but no such claim was made by him against the assessee seeking the returning of the amount paid towards the purchase of the property. The A.O. 5 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. based on his aforesaid deliberations concluded that as the assessee had during the subject year transferred the subject property, therefore, based on the FMV of the same on the date of transfer, the Long Term Capital Gains (“LTCG\") pertaining to the said transfer transaction was liable to be brought to tax in his hands. Accordingly, the A.O. based on his aforesaid deliberations made an addition of the Long Term Capital Gains (“LTCG\") of Rs.77.93 lacs in the hands of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: 6 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. 7 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. 6. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. 7. Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. the Learned Authorized Representative (in short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of the hearing of the appeal, assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O. for framing the impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee, in compliance to the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019, had filed his return of income on 11.12.2019, but the A.O., without issuing any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 8. The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had drawn our attention to the copy of the return of income that was filed by the assessee on 11.12.2019 (e-filing acknowledgment no. 270519410111219) in compliance to the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019. 9. As the assessee had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. to frame the impugned assessment on the 9 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to him, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) on the last occasion, had sought some time to obtain the report of the A.O. on the said issue. 10. The Ld. DR vide his covering letter dated 21.10.2024, had filed before us the report of the ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad, dated 10.10.2024, wherein it is stated that as the assessee had failed to file his return of income in compliance to the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2019 within the prescribed period of 30 days as was provided in the said notice, therefore, the return of income that was filed by him on 11.12.2019 was beyond the prescribed time limit and, thus, was not a valid return of income. The Ld. DR drawing support from the A.O.’s report, submitted that as the assessee had failed to file his return of income in compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019 within the prescribed period of 30 days, therefore, the A.O. by not taking cognizance of the said return of income, had rightly not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. On being queried by the Bench that, now when it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee had filed his return of income in 10 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019 on 11.12.2019 (e-filing acknowledgment no. 270519410111219) and the assessment had been framed by the AO vide order passed by him under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019, then how the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was done away with, the Ld. DR reiterated that, as the impugned return of income was filed beyond the prescribed period permitted by the said notice, i.e., 30 days from the date of service, therefore, the same was invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was required to be issued by acting on the same. The Ld. DR further submitted that the notice under Section 143(2) is issued only where the AO considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated his income or computed excessive loss or has not under the paid the tax in any manner. It was, thus, the Ld. DR’s claim that the AO remained under no obligation to issue notice u/s 143(2) in every case. Apart from that, the Ld. DR submitted that as per the mandate of law where the assessee had failed to file his return of income within the period allowed in the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the same shall not be deemed to be a return of income 11 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. under Section 139 of the Act. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that once the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148 is not to be deemed to be a return of income under Section 139 of the Act, then as a consequence thereto the obligation cast upon the AO to issue notice u/s 143(2) based on the said return of income does no longer holds the ground. The Ld. DR to buttress his aforesaid claim had drawn our attention to the “3rd proviso” to Section 148 of the Act, which provided that where the return of income is furnished beyond the period allowed in the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the same shall not be deemed to be a return of income under Section 139 of the Act. 11. The Ld. AR rebutted the aforesaid contentions of the Department and submitted that not only it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee in compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2019 had filed his return of income on 11.12.2019, but also the A.O., while framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019, had categorically observed that the assessee, in response to the notice issued, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012–13. The Ld. AR submitted that as the A.O. had grossly erred 12 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. in law and on facts of the case in framing the impugned assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2019 by dispensing with the statutory obligation cast upon him to issue a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessment framed by him cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. 12. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 13. The controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., whether the assessment framed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019, in the absence of any notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, in the backdrop of the return of income filed by the assessee on 11.12.2019 is sustainable in the eyes of law? 14. We shall first deal with the Ld. DR’s contention that as the assessee had delayed the filing of his return of income in 13 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. compliance to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019 i.e. filed the same beyond the prescribed period of 30 days on 11.12.2019, therefore, the A.O. had rightly refrained from issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, and had framed the assessment vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019. 15. It is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019, had filed his “return of income” beyond the prescribed period of 30 days i.e. on 11.12.2019. Admittedly, the A.O. not only in his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019 specifically mentioned that the assessee had filed his return of income for the subject year, but also had, inter alia, while quantifying the assessed income considered the “income from other sources” of Rs.3,47,921/- that was declared by the assessee in the said return of income. We are of the firm conviction, that merely for the reason that the assessee had delayed the filing of his “return of income” in compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019, and had filed the same on 11.12.2019, i.e. after the lapse of the prescribed period allowed in the aforesaid notice, the 14 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. same could by no means form a basis for treating the said “return of income” as invalid. Our aforesaid conviction is fortified by the fact that in case of a delay involved in filing the “return of income” in compliance to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, i.e. furnishing of the same after the prescribed period, the assessee is visited with the levy of interest for the delayed period u/s. 234A of the Act. On a bare perusal of Section 234A(3) of the Act, it transpires that though the said statutory provision contemplates that the delay involved in the filing of a “return of income” in response to the notice under Section 148, i.e. furnished after the “due date” is to be subjected to levy of interest, but the same in no way provides that the “return of income” so filed is to be held as invalid. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Smt. Amina Ismil Rangari Vs. ITO, Ward- 17(2)(4), ITA No.6261/Mum/2013 dated 15.09.2017. In the aforesaid case, the assessee's claim for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act was declined by the A.O., for the reason that the same was raised in the “return of income” that was filed u/s. 148 of the Act beyond the specified period. The A.O. was of the view that as the “return of income” filed in compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the 15 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. Act was not a valid \"return of income\", thus, the assessee was not entitled to the claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act as was raised by her. On appeal, the aforesaid view of the A.O. was vacated by the Tribunal. It was observed that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the specified period contemplated in the notice u/s. 148 of the Act would though lead to characterizing the same as a “return of income” filed beyond the prescribed period, but the same would not cease to be a “return of income” filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Also, we find that our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The indulgence of the Hon'ble High Court was, inter alia, sought for adjudicating the following substantial question of law. “Whether the return filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1)/139(4) or Section 142(1)/148 can be held as non-est in the eyes of law and has invalidated for the purpose of deciding exemption u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) 16 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessment are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. As in the present case before us, the “return of income” filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019 was filed on 11.12.2019, i.e during the pendency of the assessment proceedings which had thereafter culminated vide order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019, therefore, we are of the firm conviction that there was no justification for the A.O. to have held the said “return of income” as invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. Also, support is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of CIT Vs. Nagendra Prasad, (2023) 156 Taxmann.com 191 (Patna). The Hon'ble High Court, had observed that where the notice was used by the A.O. u/s 148 requiring the assessee to file his return of income within thirty days but the said return was filed after eight and a half months, since the return was filed by assessee in response to the said notice, though delayed, there should have been a notice issued under Section 143(2) as the requirement to issue notice could not be 17 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. dispensed with. Accordingly, based on our aforesaid observations, we are of the view that the “return of income” filed by the assessee on 11.12.2019 i.e in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2019, though delayed, did not cease to be a “return of income” in the eyes of the law. 16. Apropos the support drawn by the Ld. DR from the “3rd proviso” to Section 148 of the Act, which provides that where the return of income is furnished beyond the period allowed in the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the same shall not be deemed to be a return of income under Section 139 of the Act and, thus, no obligation is cast upon the AO to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act by acting upon such delayed return of income, we are unable to concur with the same. As the aforesaid “3rd proviso” has been made available on the statute vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01.04.2021 (i.e prior to its amendment vide the Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f 01.04.2022), and was not available on the date when notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019 was issued to the present assessee before us, therefore, the same will not carry the case of the revenue any further. Also, the Ld. DR’s claim that the notice under 18 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. Section 143(2) that it is not mandatory for the AO to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in case of every return of income filed under Section 148 of the Act, and the same is issued only where he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated his income or computed excessive loss or has not under the paid the tax in any manner, we are afraid that the same will not come to the rescue of the revenue. We say so, for the reason that even if the said claim of the Ld. DR is to be accepted, the AO in the present case having disturbed the returned income of the assessee and made additions in his hands remained under an obligation to have issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 17. We shall now deal with the second facet of the controversy involved in the present appeal, i.e. as to whether or not the assessment framed by the A.O. vide his order passed 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019, in the absence of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act having been issued by him is sustainable in the eyes of law? 18. Apropos the validity of the assessment framed by the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 19 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. 31.12.2019, wherein he despite taking cognizance of the “return of income” filed by the assessee on 11.12.2019 in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019 (which has been held by us hereinabove to be a valid return of income), had by treating the said “return of income” as invalid, dispensed with the statutory requirement of issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019, we find that the said issue is covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of ACIT and Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) and is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judicial pronouncements, has held, that the A.O. pursuant to the return of income filed by the assessee remains under the statutory obligation to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for framing the assessment. 19. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd. (2016) 3783 ITR 488 (Del). The Hon’ble High Court had held that the absence of notice u/s.143(2) 20 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. of the Act impregnates the proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, and hence, renders it as invalid in the eyes of law. The aforesaid view had thereafter been reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd., (2024) 166 taxmann.com 4 (Del). Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. Salarpur Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (2015) 228 Taxman 48 (Allahabad) had after relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (supra), held that the requirement of issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was mandatory and cannot be brought within the meaning of a procedural irregularity. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sapthagiri Finance & Investments Vs. ITO, (2012) 25 taxmann.com 341 (Mad), has held that where the A.O found that there was a problem in the “return of income” filed by the assessee u/s.148 of the Act, which required an explanation, then he ought to have followed up by a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. S.G Portfolio (P) Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 761 (Del.) has, inter alia, held that where the assessee has filed a “return of income” in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the A.O. was required to issue notice u/s.143(2) of 21 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. the Act for framing the assessment. We further find that Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Amec Foster Wheeler Iberia SLU-India Project Office Vs. DCIT, (2023) 148 taxmann.com 124 (Mad), has held that where the A.O did not issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act upon the assessee, then the initiation of reassessment proceedings; order rejecting the assessee’s objection against the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening and also the reference to the TPO were to be quashed. 20. Apropos the Ld. DR’s claim that as the assessee in the course of the proceedings before the A.O had not objected to the assumption of the jurisdiction by him, and on the contrary participated in the assessment proceedings, therefore, the non- issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act will be saved by the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act, we are unable to concur with the same. We say so, for the reason that the deeming provisions of the said statutory provision only cure the infirmities in the manner of service of notice and is not intended to cure the complete absence of notice itself. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT 22 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court relying on its earlier order in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (supra), has held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) renders the assessment order void even if the assessee had participated in the proceedings. 21. We thus, based on our aforesaid deliberations conclude as under: (a). the “return of income” filed by the assessee on 11.12.2019 in response to the notice issued by the A.O. under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019, having been filed during the pendency of the assessment proceedings which had culminated vide the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019, is a valid “return of income” though involving a delay. (b). the A.O by treating the “return of income” filed by the assessee on 11.12.2019 in response to notice u/s 148, dated 27.03.2019 as invalid and non-est, had wrongly assumed jurisdiction by dispensing with the statutory obligation cast upon him to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, and wrongly framed the 23 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019..; AND (c). that as the deeming provisions of Section 292BB of the Act only cure the infirmities in the manner of service of notice and is not intended to cure the complete absence of notice itself, therefore, the non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, based on the “return of income” filed by the assessee on 11.12.2019 in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019 will not be saved by the deeming provisions of the said statutory provision. 22. Accordingly, we are of the view that as the A.O in the present case before us, had erroneously held the “return of income” filed by the assessee on 11.12.2019 i.e in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2019 as invalid and non-est, and thereafter had on the said wrong premises dispensed with the statutory requirement of issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, and framed the impugned assessment vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.12.2019, therefore, the 24 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. assessment order so passed by him cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. 23. As we have quashed the assessment framed by the A.O. for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the other issues, based on which, the impugned assessment has been assailed before us on the other grounds of appeal which, thus, are left open. 24. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- Hyderabad, dated 30.06.2025. TYNM/sps 25 ITA No.646/Hyd/2023 Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad. आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Jahangir Syed, C/o. P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda – 500082, Hyderabad. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad "
Mehul