SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PANDHARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 PANDHARPUR , PANDHARPUR

ITA 1406/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Swami Vivekanand Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, the appellant, contesting an assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18, which was passed under sections 144 and 144A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was regarding the disallowance of deductions under Section 80P due to the late filing of the return of income. The Assessing Officer had treated the return as invalid since it was filed beyond the deadline specified in the notice under section 142(1). The Tribunal examined the validity of the return and the applicability of Section 80A(5), which mandates that deductions must be claimed in a timely filed return to be eligible.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826399 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Nileshwar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs. CIT, EBR Enterprises Vs. Union of India, Bhagat Singh and Virender Singh vs ACIT, K.Nagesh Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMBARNATH KHULE THROUGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1); 6; 2; 15; 10B; 10AA

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFOREDR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Swami Vivekanand Nagari SahakariPatsansthaMaryadit, 1980/81, Rukmini Patangan, Laxmi Narayan Complex, Pandharpur – 413304. Maharashtra. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Pandharpur. PAN: AACAS1854K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ambarnath Khule-JCIT(Through Virtual Hearing) Date of hearing 26/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 06/01/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18dated 18.03.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 2 section 144 r.w.s 144Aof the Act, dated 22.08.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “01. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Addl. CIT(Appeals)-7 Kolkata, was erred in passing an order without verifying whether the notice u/s 143(2) in the course of assessment proceeding was issued 02 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.Addl. CIT(Appeals)-7 Kolkata, failed to consider the fact that the assesse society has filed its Return of income in response to notice u/s 142(1)and same is a valid return. 03. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.Addl. CIT(Appeals)-7 Kolkata failed to substantiate the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the Act. 04 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.Addl. CIT(Appeals)-7 Kolkata deduction u/s 80P by invoking section 80AC in as much as the amendment to the said section, bringing deduction u/s 80P within its ambit, is effective from 01/04/2018 and therefore the said provision is not applicable to the relevant assessment year. 05. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.Addl. CIT(Appeals)-7 Kolkata failed to verify the deductions claimed u/s 80P of the IT Act in the return of income. 06. The appellant craves for leave to add, alter, amend, delete etc the above grounds of appeal in the interest of natural justice.” Additional Ground : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the order without verifying the service of notice u/s.142(1) dated 12.12.2017, without which it could not be possible for appellant to file the return of income or before the date mentioned in the said notice.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 3 2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No one had appeared on behalf of assessee for the earlier hearing scheduled on 02.07.2025, hence, the hearing was adjourned to 04.07.2025. 2.1 On 04th July 2025 Bench did not function, hence case was adjourned to 04/08/2025. On 04/08/2025 no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, no adjournment letter was filed. Hence the case was adjourned to 15/09/2025 which was informed to the assessee by Notice. On 15.09.2025 also, no one appeared, hence the case was adjourned to 26.11.2025. Notice was issued to the assessee. No one appeared on 26.11.2025, no adjournment letter has been filed. ITAT has served the notices to the assessee electronically on the email address filed by Assessee in Form No.36. The said email address is as under : [e-mail] 2.2 It is observed that assessee has voluntarily given the above referred email address in the Form No.36 which is filed as per Rule 47 for filing the appeal before ITAT. 3. We have heard ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue. We have studied the records available. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 4 Basic Facts : 4.It is observed that Assessment Order for A.Y.2017-18 in the case of the Assessee was passed under section 144 r.w.s 144A of the Act. Assessee had not filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.142(1) dated 12.12.2017 requiring assessee to furnish return for A.Y.2017-18, the said notice was served on the assessee on 26/12/2017 as mentioned in the assessment order. Then, Assessing Officer(AO) issued a notice u/s.144 of the Act, on 18.06.2019. Assessee filed written submission before the Assessing Officer on 25.06.2019, 18.07.2019 and 01.08.2019. It is mentioned in the assessment order that Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18 on 21.07.2019. The Assessing Officer specifically observed in the assessment order that it was not a valid Return of income. Therefore, Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act. Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(2) of the Act, as Assessee has not filed valid Return of income. Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(2) relying on Section 80A(5) of the Act. Assessing Officer assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.20,50,660/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.Commissioner of Income Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 5 Tax (A). As per the faceless scheme the Appeal of the Assessee was assigned to Addl./JCIT (A) -7 Kolkatta. 4.1The ld.Addl/JCIT(A) upheld the Assessment Order. The relevant paragraph 5.5 of the ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata’s order u/s 250 of the Act is reproduced here as under : “Afte analysing the assessment order and appellant‟s submission, it is observed that there is no doubt about the fact that the appellant had not filed return of income within the date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act inspite of it having income exceeding the minimum amount (before allowing any deduction as per the Act) not liable for income tax during the relevant year. The assessing officer had issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act specifying the date therein by which it was required to file the return. The appellant had received the notice getting a time of 16 days (notice was received by the appellant on 26.12.2017 and it was asked to file return on or before 11.01.2018) to file the return. But the appellant ignored the notice and did not file any return within the date specified therein. It did not either apply for any extension of the date for filing the return [the purported return filed on 21.07.2019 i.e. after 557 days from the date by which he had been asked to file it by notice u/s 142(1) dated 12.12.2017 was treated as non-est since it was not filed as per the contents of the said notice]. But in the intervening period it did comply with other hearing notices issued by the AO and submitted details and documents before the AO. From the documents so filed, the assessing officer noted that the appellant which is registered cooperative society had earned gross income of Rs.20,50,658/-. But at the same time the appellant had claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act against such gross income. Sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act readd as under:- “Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading “C.- Deductions in respect of certain incomes:, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 6 Section 80P comes within heading „C‟ of Chapter VIA of the Act. Therefore sub-Section (5) of section 80P is squarely applicable in appellant‟s case. Since it had failed to file any valid return as per notice issued u/s 142(1), the deduction u/s 80P as claimed by the appellant was rightly disallowed by the assessing officer. It is also to be mentioned here that in the ground of appeal no.3, the appellant stated that the deduction u/ss 80P was denied by the AO after invoking the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. it is stated that the appellant has misinterpreted the assessment order on this account. The AO had invoked the provisions of section 80A(5) and not 80AC of the Act while denying the deduction u/s 80P. There is no infirmity in AO‟s action and the assessed income is confirmed. The appeal is therefore dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order u/s.250 of the Act, Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We are deciding each ground of assessee as under : Additional Ground : 6.1 Assessee raised additional ground that notice u/s.142(1) dated 12.12.2017 was not served on the assessee. This ground was never raised before the ld.CIT(A). It is also mentioned in the assessment order paragraph 1 that notice dated 12.12.2017 was served on assessee on 26.12.2017. On perusal of the additional ground and other documents filed by the Assessee, it is noted that Assessee has filed copy of notice dated 12.12.2017 along with the additional ground. Assessee has also filed Screenshot obtained from E-filing portal which shows that notice u/s.142(1)was available for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 7 downloading. The said Screenshot submitted by the Assessee is reproduced here as under : 6.1.1 Thus, it can be observed that the Screenshot obtained from the E-filing Portal which has been submitted by Assessee does show that notice u/s.142(1) was available for download. It means, notice u/s.142(1) dated 12.12.2017 was duly served on assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 8 6.1.2 It is also observed from the submission of the Assessee which Assessee filed before the CIT(A) which has been reproduced by him in the order u/s 250 of the Act, that Assessee has accepted receipt of the Notice u/s 142 dated 12/12/2017. The relevant submission of the Assessee as appearing in the order u/s 250 of the Act is reproduced here as under : 6.1.3 Thus, the Assessee has referred to the Notice u/s.142 dated 12/12/2027 in its submission made before the ld.CIT(A). 6.1.4 All the above facts prove that the Notice u/s.142 dated 12/12/2017 was duly served on the Assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 9 6.1.5 In these facts and circumstances of the case, the additional ground raised by the assessee that notice u/s.142(1) dated 12.12.2017 was not served on assessee is dismissed. 7. Ground Numbers 2,3,4 and 5 all are pertaining to deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Since all these grounds are interlinked they are discussed together here under : 7.1 The due date of filling the Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act was 07/11/2017 for AY 2017-18. 7.2 The relevant sections pertaining to filling of Return are reproduced here under : Return of income. “139. (1) Every person,— (a) being a company or a firm; or (b) being a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed : ………………… (4) Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1), may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 10 7.3Thus, as per Section 139(4) of the Act, if a person fails to file return of Income within the time permitted u/s139(1) may furnish the return of Income before the end of relevant Assessment Year. Thus, in the case of the Assessee time to file Return u/s 139(4) was upto 31/03/2019. 7.4 In the case of the assessee Notice u/s 142 dated 12/12/2017 was served on the assessee but assessee has not filed Return within the time allowed as per the Notice u/s 142 of the Act. 7.5 In this case admittedly the Return of Income was filed on 21/07/2019. We have already reproduced the statutory dates, it can be noted that the Return of Income filed by the Assessee on 21/07/2019 was much beyond the time allowed u/s 139(1),139(4) and 142. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the Return as Invalid. Assessing Officer rejected Assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P as the Return was invalid and as per provisions of Section 80A(5) of the Act, deduction u/s 80P must be claimed in the Return of Income. The word “Return of Income” referred in section 80A(5) means a valid Return of Income. The Return which was not filed within the time allowed u/s 139(1),139(4) and 142 is invalid and it is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 11 non-est Return. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. 7.6 We find support from the Order of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of NileshwarRangekallu Chethu VyavasayaThozhilaliSahakarana SanghamVs. CIT [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Kerala)[14-03-2023]. In the said case Hon’ble Kerala High Court on identical facts held as under : Quote, “3. For the assessment year 2009-10, the appellant did not file any return of income. Believing that theappellant had income chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment, the Department issued a notice undersection 148 of the IT Act to the appellant on 6-2-2012 requiring the appellant to furnish a return of incomewithin 30 days of receipt of the notice. The appellant failed to file the return of income in response to thenotice under section 148. A return was however filed by the appellant on 5-7-2012, which was much beyondthe date for filing of return in terms of section 139(4) of the IT Act. The return of income for the assessmentyear 2009-10 should have been filed on or before 31-3- 2011 in terms of section 139(4) of the IT Act. Sincethe return of income was filed after the expiry of the time allowed under section 139(4) and much after thedue date mentioned in the notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer treated the same as invalid andproceeded to complete the assessment in terms of section 144 of the IT Act after hearing the representative ofthe appellant and verifying the books of account and other details called for by the Department. Whilecompleting the assessment, the claim of the appellant for deduction under section 80P was disallowed on theground that the claim for deduction had not been made in a valid return filed by the appellant in terms of theIT Act. It Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 12 was the stand of the Assessing Officer that in view of the provisions of section 80A(5) of the IT Act,the claim for deduction could not be considered.……… 6. The appellant/assessee has preferred these IT Appeals raising the following substantial questions of lawtherein: 1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case in not considering the issue of rejection ofclaim under section 80P by the Lower authorities as hit by section 80 A (5) of the Act as the claim madein a belated return, which issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of theHonourable Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 68taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.). 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case in not considering the issue/fact that both theassessing officer and the CIT (Appeals) has held that the appellant/assessee is not entitled to anydeduction under section 80 P of the Act erroneously holding that the return filed by the appellant is non-est and invalid and hit by section 80 A (5) of the Act and therefore the appellant is not entitled to anydeduction under section 80 P of the Act?.................... ………………………… 8. These questions of law are taken together since they pertain to the issue of whether the claim for deduction under section 80P(2) (a)(iii) of the IT Act, that was made by the assessee in returns stated to be filed on 5-7-2012 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 can be seen as validly made for the purposes of the ITAct. Theauthorities below hold the view that it cannot. They rely on the provisions of section 80A(5) of theIT Act that make it obligatory on an assessee claiming deduction Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 13 under section 80P of the IT Act to make theclaim in its return of income, to contend that the return of income referred to in section 80A(5) mustnecessarily be one that is traceable to the provisions of the IT Act that mandate the filing of a return such assection 139(1), section 139(4), section 142(1) or section 148, and since in the case of the assessee herein, theclaim was made in a return filed beyond the due date for filing returns under the aforesaid provisions, thereturn filed had to be seen as invalid and non-est…………… ………………………… 11. On a consideration of the rival submissions and on a perusal of the statutory provisions, we find that areading of section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the IT Act as they stood prior to 1-4-2018, when the latterprovision was amended by Finance Act 2018, would reveal that the statutory scheme under the IT Act was toadmit only such claims for deduction under section 80P of the IT Act as were made by the assessee in a returnof income filed by him. That return can be under sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or section 148, and to bevalid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under section 80A(5), theclaim for deductionunder section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the timeprescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC witheffect from 1-4-2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under section 80P of the ITAct, he had to furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified insection 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1-4-2018, even if the assessee makes his claim fordeduction under section 80P in a return filed within time under sections 139(4), 142(1) or section 148, he willnot be allowed the deduction, unless the return in question was filed within the due date prescribed undersection 139(1). Thus, it is clear that the statutory scheme permits the allowance of a deduction Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 14 under section80P of the IT Act only if it is made in a return recognised as such under the IT Act, and after 1-4-2018, only ifthat return is one filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. As the return in these cases,for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under sections139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issuedunder section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before thecompletion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction in a return ofincome filed by the assessee can be seen as a statutory pre-condition for claiming the benefit of deductionunder the IT Act. It is trite that a provision for deduction or exemption under a taxing Statute has to be strictlyconstrued against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Thus viewed, a failure on the part of an assesseeto comply with the pre- condition for obtaining the deduction cannot be condoned either by the statutoryauthorities or by the courts. 13. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion that we must consider the findings of a Division Bench ofthis Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [supra]. The findings therein, that appear to suggestthat a claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a return filed beyond thetime permitted under the IT Act, ignores the perspective that sees the requirement of the claim for deductionbeing made in a valid return as a pre-condition for obtaining the benefit of the statutory deduction. The saidfindings also fly in the face of the express statutory provisions that requires the claim to be made in a returnfiled by the assessee, by which term is meant a valid return under the Act, and therefore have necessarily to beseen as per incuriam. We also find that the subsequent amendments Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 15 to section 80AC by the Finance Act 2018fortifies the view that we have taken for, it makes the claim for deduction under section 80P conditional onfiling a return within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, the pre-condition for claiming the deduction under section 80P of the IT Act has now been made more stringent byreducing the time available to an assessee for making the claim.”Unquote.(emphasis supplied) 7.7 Thus, on identical facts in the case of Nileshwar Rangekallu ChethuVyavasayaThozhilaliSahakarana Sangham (supra) the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that the Return of Income filed beyond the time allowed u/s.139,142 and 148 is Invalid Return and hence as per section 80A(5) of the Act, Assessee was held to be not eligible for deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 7.8 TheHon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Enterprises Vs. Union of India 415 ITR 139 (Bombay)[04-06-2019] has held as under : Quote, “5. As per this provision, where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under Section 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading \"C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes\", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim of deduction in relation to income under any of the provisions mentioned therein. Apart from the requirement of fulfilment of individual set of respective conditions for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 16 the purpose of claiming the concerned deduction, this plenary condition requires that the claim ought to have made in the return of income by the assessee and if the assessee fails to make such claim in the return of income, such deduction shall not be allowed to him under the relevant provision. Admittedly, in the present case, the Petitioners had not raised any such claim in the return of income. In plain terms, the claim of the Petitioners under Section 80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the act. …………………….. ……………………….. What Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act mandates is that, if the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under the provisions specified therein, the same would not be granted to the assessee. This condition or restriction is not relatable to the Assessing Officer or the Income Tax Authority. This condition attaches to the claim of the assessee and has to be implemented by the Assessing Officer, CIT or the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be. There is no indication in Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act as to why the restriction contained therein amounts to limiting the power of Assessing Officer but not that of Commissioner.” Unquote. 7.9 Thus, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court categorically held that as per Section 80A(5) of the Act, to claim deduction u/s chapter VIA of the Act, assesseehas to claim the deduction in the return of Income. The Return of Income means valid Return of Income. 8. Since in the case of the Assessee, the Return of Income was filed much beyond the time allowed u/s 139, 142 of the Act, the Return of Income was not a Valid Return of Income. Therefore, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 17 claim made by Assessee for deduction u/s 80P in the Invalid Return is not valid. Hence, as per section 80A(5),respectfully following the Hon’ble Kerala High Court (supra) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra) we uphold the disallowance u/s 80P of the Act made by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. 8.1 Accordingly Ground Numbers 2,3,4 and 5 raised by the assesseeare dismissed. Ground No.1 : 9. In this case admittedly Return of Income was filed on 21/07/2019. We have already discussed in earlier paragraphs that the Return of Income filed by the Assessee was beyond the time allowed u/s 139, 142 of the Act. Hence the impugned Return of Income was invalid, non-est Return. We have already reproduced the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that Return filed beyond the time permitted u/s.139, 142 is Invalid Return. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K.Nagesh Vs. ACIT [2015] 376 ITR 473 dated 20.04.2015 has held that “The word 'return', thus means, a legal and valid return.” Therefore, respectfully following, Hon’ble Kerala High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, wehave already held that Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 18 the Return of Income filed by the Assessee on 21/07/2019 was Invalid, non-est Return. Therefore, no action was required with reference to the impugned Non-est Return. 9.1Section 143(2) of the Act is reproduced here as under : Assessment. 143. (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return: 9.2Section 143(2) stipulates that notice u/s 143(2) shall be issued where a Return has been filed u/s 139 or in response to notice u/s 142. In the case of the Assessee we have already held that the Return of Income was filed beyond the time permitted u/s.139,142 of the Act, hence it was Invalid, non-estReturn of Income. Henec, AO was Right in not issuing Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 19 9.3We find support from the ITAT (Third Member) decision in the case of Bhagat Singh and Virender Singh vs ACIT [2000] 75 ITD 1 (DELHI) (TM). In the said case it was held “7. Once it is decided that the return dated 16-3-1995 filed by the assessee was a non est return, the next question in regard to the issuance ofnotice under section 143(2) becomes insignificant” 9.3.1 The proposition of law laid down in the case of Bhagat Singh and Virender Singh Vs.ACIT (supra) is applicable in the case of the Assessee also. 9.4Therefore, we hold that the Act do not ask Assessing officer to issue notice u/s.143(2) for Invalid, non-est Return of Income. Accordingly, the AO was right in not issuing Notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The AO has passed Assessment Order u/s 144 of the Act in the case of the Assessee. 9.5 Accordingly, the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. Ground No.6 is general in nature and does not need any adjudication, hence dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] 20 11. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06 January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 06 Jan, 2026/ SGR आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “एस एम सऩ” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, / / TRUE COPY / / Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "