Original return of Income was filed on 20.10.2007 at NIL income. The notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, was issued on 25.03.2014 after recording the reasons and taking prior approval from the competent authorities. The assessee in response to the statutory notice vide letter dated 10.04.2014 submitting therein that the original return filed may please be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act and also requested to provide reasons recorded, which were duly provided to it. The assessee also filled its objections which were disposed off. The A.O. issued statutory notice which were complied by the assessee and filed details as called for. The A.O. after discussing the case with the assessee, accepted the returned income and completed the re-assessment order under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on Dated 30.06.2014. The Ld. Pr. CIT also noted that as there is no statutory notice under section 143(2) prescribed in the Act and only non-statutory notice is prescribed, the purpose of which is to intimate the assessee that the case has been selected for scrutiny and the notices issued on dated 11.06.2014 and 19.06.2014 clearly proves that the case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny, such show cause notices are nothing but notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. It is also noted by the Ld. Pr. CIT that even though no formal notice under section 143(2) was issued by the A.O, in the letters dated 11.06.2014 and 19.06.2014 it was specifically mentioned that in the absence of the requisite details the assessment would be completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. has not examined this issue in the light of seized material. Therefore, re-assessment order was found to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because A.O. failed to look into the seized material. The Order was set aside and restored to the file of A.O. with a direction to examine the seized material and confront the same to the assessee and pass the order in accordance with law. On appeal the Tribunal held that, as notice under section 143(2) was not issued, the reassessment order is invalid, bad in law and non-est and an invalid reassessment order cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act. (AY. 2007 -08, 2009 -10)
Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30/ 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib) Superior Buildwell P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30/ 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Reassessment – Invalid reassessment order cannot be revised – Revision u/s 263 cannot be made if reassessment u/s 147 was invalid, as reassessment was made without issue of notice u/s 143(2) [ S.143(2), 147]