Delhi ITAT Sets Aside Reassessment for Omission to Issue Notice under Section 143(2)

Overview of the Decision

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Ashok Kumar Tewari Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) has invalidated a reassessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was void because the Assessing Officer failed to issue the statutory notice under Section 143(2) after reopening the assessment under Section 148.

The ruling reiterates that service of a notice under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional requirement where the Assessing Officer proposes to make an assessment different from the returned income, even in reassessment proceedings. The non-issuance of such notice is not a mere procedural lapse but goes to the root of the validity of the reassessment.

Background of the Appeal

Assessment and Appeal History

• The National Faceless Assessment Centre passed an order dated 24.03.2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144 for AY 2016-17 in the case of Ashok Kumar Tewari.
• Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which passed an order dated 14.11.2025 (DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082627880(1)`).
• The assessee then approached the Delhi ITAT challenging the reassessment order and the order of the NFAC.

Core Contention Raised by the Assessee

The principal argument advanced on behalf of the assessee was:

• After issuance of notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer did not issue any notice under Section 143(2).
• Only notices under Section 142(1) were issued through the e-proceeding portal.
• In the absence of a valid and timely notice under Section 143(2), the reassessment proceedings lacked jurisdiction and were therefore void.

The assessee relied upon the jurisdictional defect, contending that the entire reassessment exercise was vitiated for want of compliance with a mandatory statutory requirement.

Stand of the Revenue

Arguments by the Departmental Representative

The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the appeal on the following grounds:

• The assessment was completed under Section 144 due to non-compliance and non-participation by the assessee in the reassessment proceedings.
• The specific plea regarding non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) had not been expressly raised before the CIT(A) (NFAC).
• Even before the Tribunal, the Revenue argued that the assessee did not take a distinct and specific ground on the absence of Section 143(2) notice.

Written submissions were filed on behalf of the Revenue; however, notably, those submissions did not include any clear factual assertion that a notice under Section 143(2) had in fact been issued and served on the assessee.

Tribunal’s Examination of the Record

Verification through E-Proceedings

The Tribunal carefully examined the material produced by the assessee, particularly:

• Screenshots from the e-proceedings portal placed at pages 30 to 32 of the paper book.

From this electronic record, the Tribunal noted:

1. Notice under Section 148 was served on 29.07.2022.
2. Subsequently, only notices under Section 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer.
3. There was no indication or proof of any notice having been issued under Section 143(2) at any stage after the reopening.

On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) stood established on facts.

Scope of the Grounds Raised

Although the Revenue argued that the ground relating specifically to Section 143(2) was not raised before the CIT(A), the Tribunal took a broader view: