M/S. URBAN NIRMAN LLP,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 12(1), KOLKTA

ITA 1730/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Urban Nirmal LLP, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act during the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had communicated to the AO, requesting the original return filed under section 139(1) be treated as a response to the notice under section 148. Despite this, no notice under section 143(2) was issued, leading to the Tribunal's decision to quash the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791159 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT, PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd., PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.B. CHAKRABORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDARTH JHAJHARIA
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.1730/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s Urban Nirmal LLP 3rd Floor, Crescent Tower, 229, A.J.c. Bose Road, Minto Park, Kolkata-700020, West Bengal Vs. ITO, Ward 12(1) Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAEFU9618G Assessee by : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, AR Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 09.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 11.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 24.03.2025 for the AY 2013-14. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 61 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.1730/KOL/2025 M/s Urban Nirmal LLP; A.Y. 2013-14 hence, we condone the delay and adjudication of the appeal is done in the following para. 3. The assessee has raised an additional ground before us which is against the non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act thereby rendering the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144/144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022, as invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. 3.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal challenging the non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal issue qua which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts are required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely coverd by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the original return of income on 29.09.2013, declaring total income of ₹20,56,820/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS for scrutiny and accordingly, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.1730/KOL/2025 M/s Urban Nirmal LLP; A.Y. 2013-14 order dated 22.03.2016, assessing the total income at ₹95,95,420/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 after obtaining the due approval from the competent authority. The assessee was required to file the return of income within 30 days from the date of the said notice. However, according to the ld. AO, the assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act till the date of the assessment order. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on20.11.2021, by JAO requesting the assessee to file the return of income in response to notice 148 of the Act, however, the same was also not complied with. The ld. AO noted that in Para no.2 of the assessment order page no.2 that assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act by the JAO on 20.11.2021. Finally, the assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144/144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022, was framed by making an addition of ₹1,24,00,000/- by way of cash credit. The said order of the ld. AO was affirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 4.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is nullity and bad in law as the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. AO had no jurisdiction to frame the said assessment. The ld. AR also controverted the objections/observations of the ld. AO that the assessee has not filed any return of income in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by submitting that the assessee has in fact filed a letter dated 24.01.2022, submitting before the ld. AO to treat the return filed originally u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2013, as return in response Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.1730/KOL/2025 M/s Urban Nirmal LLP; A.Y. 2013-14 to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The ld. AR also referred to the acknowledgement of the return filed by the assessee originally, however, the ld. AR submitted the ld. AO overlooked the said fact and did not issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. When the said fact was put to the ld. DR, he candidly admitted that no notice was issued by the ld. AO u/s 143(2) of the Act, after the ld. AO found that the assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice us/ 148 of the Act. However, candidly, admitted that the assessee vide letter dated 24.01.2022, informed the ld. AO to treat the return filed originally on 29.09.2013, as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. 4.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the undisputedly, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the ld. AO after assessee informed the ld. AO vide letter dated 24.01.2022, that return filed originally u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2013, may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and also attached an acknowledgement of the return filed originally. In our opinion, the said communication by the assessee to the ld. AO is a sufficient compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and it is obligatory and mandatory on the part of the ld. AO to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act failing which the assessment framed by the ld. AO is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi)/[2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi)/[2016] 282 CTR 435 (Delhi)[14-10-2015], wherein it is held that the failure by Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.1730/KOL/2025 M/s Urban Nirmal LLP; A.Y. 2013-14 the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act, pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the Act, is fatal to the order of re-assessment. Therefore, we respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in case of PCIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. (supra), quash the assessment framed by the ld. AO as invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated:11.12.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "