Manual Section 143(2) Notices Without DIN Held Invalid: Analysis of ITO Vs Lalita Agarwal (ITAT Delhi)

1. Background of the Dispute

The case of ITO Vs Lalita Agarwal before the ITAT Delhi deals with the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 when the foundational notice under Section 143(2) was issued manually, without any Document Identification Number (DIN), after the effective date of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019.

The appeals covered:

  • By the assessee: A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17
  • By the Revenue: A.Ys 2014-15 and 2015-16

Since all the matters involved the same assessee and raised identical jurisdictional issues, the Tribunal dealt with them together in one consolidated order dated 15.01.2026.

The central controversy was whether reassessment orders framed under Section 147/144 could survive in the absence of a validly issued and served notice under Section 143(2), in the context of the DIN mandate introduced by CBDT.

The assessee filed an application under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules seeking to raise an additional legal ground, contending as follows:

  • The reassessment orders under Section 147/144 for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17 were void ab initio.
  • This invalidity arose from the non-issuance of a proper and valid notice under Section 143(2) in accordance with:
    • CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA.II dated 23.06.2017, and
    • The later CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 mandating DIN-based communication.

The assessee argued that this issue is purely legal, goes to the root of jurisdiction, and can be decided on the basis of facts already on record, without any fresh fact-finding.

2.2 Existing Grounds Already Challenging Jurisdiction

The assessee’s original grounds for:

  • A.Y. 2012-13 (Ground Nos. 1–4), and
  • A.Ys 2013-14 to 2016-17 (Ground Nos. 1–3)

already included a specific challenge to:

  • The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, and
  • The absence of a validly served Section 143(2) notice within the statutory time.

The additional ground was therefore an elaboration and legal refinement of an already existing jurisdictional challenge.

3. Factual Matrix Regarding Section 143(2) Notices

3.1 RTI Proceedings and Production of Notices

The assessee obtained copies of the so-called Section 143(2) notices only after the reassessment orders were passed, through proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005:

  • RTI application dated 06.01.2020
  • RTI response dated 10.01.2020 from the Assessing Officer

Based on this RTI response, the Revenue produced manual notices dated 07.11.2019 purportedly issued under Section 143(2) for A.Ys **2012-13 to 2016-17`.

3.2 Assessee’s Objection to the Validity of These Notices

The assessee contended:

  1. These notices were not in the prescribed format mandated by CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA.II dated 23.06.2017 governing Section 143(2) notice formats.
  2. More critically, the notices were issued manually in November 2019, i.e. after 01.10.2019, when CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 had already made DIN compulsory for all communications.

3.3 ITBA Portal Timeline: No Record of Section 143(2) Notices

The assessee relied on the e-proceeding timeline on the ITBA portal for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17, which showed:

  • Issuance of notices under Section 148
  • Issuance of multiple Section 142(1) notices

But no entry at all reflecting any notice under Section 143(2).

The absence of any Section 143(2) event in the electronic system, despite all other notices being reflected, supported the assessee’s stand that:

  • Either no valid Section 143(2) notice was issued, or
  • Any manual notice, if issued, was not in conformity with the law post-Circular 19/2019.

4. Revenue’s Stand

The Departmental Representative argued that:

  • Manual notices under Section 143(2) dated 07.11.2019 were indeed issued for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17, and
  • Copies of such notices were placed at relevant pages of the Paper Book.

On this basis, Revenue contended that a valid Section 143(2) notice had been issued and that jurisdiction under Section 147 was properly assumed.