Topic
Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates that a notice be issued by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer before initiating a scrutiny assessment of a taxpayer's return.
ITAT Pune rules that failure to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after assessee files return in response to notice u/s 148 renders re-assessment order invalid, even if return is delayed.
ITAT Mumbai rules that failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) during reassessment proceedings renders the entire assessment void ab initio. The tribunal held that issuing a demand notice alongside a draft assessment order under Section 144C without adhering to procedural safeguards constitutes a jurisdictional error, impacting all taxpayers undergoing reassessment.
The ITAT Kolkata has ruled that failure to issue a Section 143(2) notice at all renders reassessment proceedings null and void, and the curative provision under Section 292BB does not apply to complete non-issuance - only defective service. This clarifies a critical jurisdictional safeguard for assessees, reinforcing that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in tax reassessments.
ITAT Delhi has ruled that an income tax assessment under Section 143(3) is legally invalid if the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an Assessing Officer without proper pecuniary jurisdiction, as mandated by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. This sets a critical precedent for taxpayers and tax officers alike - jurisdictional compliance is not procedural but jurisdictional, and defects here cannot be cured by subsequent actions.
ITAT Jodhpur rules that cash deposits during demonetization under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act demand rigorous documentary proof of source. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh assessment, emphasizing procedural compliance and the assessee’s burden to substantiate transactions with valid evidence, impacting tax litigation and banking law.
ITAT Bangalore clarifies that reassessment under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act does not necessitate a fresh notice under Section 143(2), as the proceedings are a continuation of the original assessment. This ruling streamlines procedural compliance for tax authorities and assessees, avoiding redundant notices in set-aside cases.
ITAT Delhi rules that an assessment order is void ab initio if the notice under Section 143(2) is issued by an Assessing Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, as mandated by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The ruling reinforces jurisdictional compliance as a non-negotiable prerequisite for valid tax assessments, impacting all pending and future scrutiny cases.
ITAT Lucknow quashes an assessment order for failure to issue the mandatory Section 143(2) notice, reinforcing that jurisdictional compliance is non-negotiable regardless of return filing timelines. The ruling underscores that procedural lapses render assessments void ab initio, impacting taxpayers facing re-assessment proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai rules that the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer does not invalidate a faceless assessment under Section 144B. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication on merits, reinforcing that procedural compliance under faceless assessment regimes does not override jurisdictional authority. This ruling clarifies the interplay between jurisdictional notices and faceless assessment procedures, impacting tax assessees and revenue authorities alike.