Case Number: ITA 2408/DEL/2022
Appellant: Mam Raj Chuni Lal, Delhi
Respondent: ITO Ward-46(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Case Filed On: September 29, 2022
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: May 25, 2023
Pronounced On: May 25, 2023
This appeal, filed by the assessee Mam Raj Chuni Lal, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated September 7, 2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In response to the notice issued under section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on November 23, 2019. The AO made two additions of Rs. 6,98,840/- each under sections 68 and 69 of the Act. The assessee, aggrieved by this order, appealed to the learned CIT(Appeals), who upheld the additions.
The main contention of the assessee was the non-service of the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was a prerequisite for a valid assessment. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 0325 (SC), which held that in the absence of such notice, the assessment was invalid.
The Department, represented by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR, supported the orders of the authorities below. The assessee’s counsel, S/Shri Somil Agarwal and Sh. Shrey Jain, argued that the assessment order should be quashed due to the lack of proper notice.
During the proceedings, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to produce the assessment record and a factual report from the AO. The assessment record and the factual report confirmed that no proof of issuance and service of notice under section 143(2) was available.
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Laxman Das Khandelwal, which established that the absence of notice under section 143(2) was a fundamental defect that could not be cured by the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 292BB only applies where there are infirmities in the manner of service of notice, not the complete absence of notice.
Respectfully following the Supreme Court’s precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order due to the lack of service of the mandatory notice under section 143(2). Since the assessment order was quashed on legal grounds, the other grounds raised by the assessee became academic and were not adjudicated.
As a result, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on May 25, 2023.
(KUL BHARAT)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI
Mam Raj Chuni Lal vs. ITO Ward-46(1), Delhi: Income Tax Dispute for AY 2012-13
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform