Same point, at Tribunal level: can taking part in a reassessment cure a missing s.143(2) notice?
No. Section 292BB cures defects in service of notice but does not cure the complete absence of the notice. The reassessment was quashed and a Rs 2.33 crore s.68 addition went with it.
Decided by the ITAT (ITAT Nagpur — Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Shri Khettra Mohan Roy (Accountant Member)) on 2026-05-14, reported as ITA No. 178/NAG/2025; 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 598. It bears on section 143(2), section 292BB, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Reassessment & Reopening matters.
Worth reading beside Oracle Systems. The same point, decided the same way at Tribunal level, and here the amount added (Rs 2.33 crore) was fifteen times the amount that triggered the reopening (Rs 15 lakh) — which is its own story about scope creep in reassessments.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
An iron and steel manufacturer filed a nil income return for assessment year 2018-19. On information regarding a receipt of Rs 15 lakh, reassessment under s.147 was initiated. The assessee said the amount was an advance for sale of goods and produced supporting documents. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment adding Rs 2.33 crore as unexplained cash credit under s.68.
As reported: the Tribunal quashed the reassessment and deleted the s.68 addition because no notice under s.143(2) had been issued before the reassessment was completed, and the assessee's participation could not cure that absence; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the cross-objection allowed. None of that has been checked against the order, which could not be found in a full-text subscription research database. No paragraph has been read, and it is not established whether the s.143(2) notice was absent altogether or merely out of time — a distinction on which the result turns.
No paragraph of the order has been read. The rule it is cited for is, however, settled at the highest level and can be run directly on that authority. In CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), decided 13 August 2019 by Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ., in Civil Appeal Nos. 6261 and 6262 of 2019, the Court held at para 9 that s.292BB creates a legal fiction curing infirmities in the service of a notice where the assessee has participated, but that it does not save the complete absence of a notice: for s.292BB to apply the notice must have emanated from the department, and the section cures only infirmities in the manner of service. On the facts there, no s.143(2) notice had ever been issued, and the quashing of the assessment by the Tribunal and the High Court was upheld (para 10). That decision affirmed Asstt. CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 182 (MP) and rests on Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 188 Taxman 113/321 ITR 362 (SC), where the omission to issue a s.143(2) notice was held not to be a curable procedural irregularity. Whether this Nagpur order applied that rule in the terms reported here cannot be checked.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Section 292BB cures defects in service of notice but does not cure the complete absence of the notice. The reassessment was quashed and a Rs 2.33 crore s.68 addition went with it. This was decided by the ITAT (ITAT Nagpur — Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Shri Khettra Mohan Roy (Accountant Member)) and bears on section 143(2), section 292BB, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 178/NAG/2025; 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 598. Worth reading beside Oracle Systems. The same point, decided the same way at Tribunal level, and here the amount added (Rs 2.33 crore) was fifteen times the amount that triggered the reopening (Rs 15 lakh) — which is its own story about scope creep in reassessments. If it applies to you, the first step is this: In every reassessment, obtain the s.143(2) notice or a written statement that none was issued.
An iron and steel manufacturer filed a nil income return for assessment year 2018-19. On information regarding a receipt of Rs 15 lakh, reassessment under s.147 was initiated. The assessee said the amount was an advance for sale of goods and produced supporting documents. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment adding Rs 2.33 crore as unexplained cash credit under s.68. The matter was decided on 2026-05-14 by the ITAT (ITAT Nagpur — Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Shri Khettra Mohan Roy (Accountant Member)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. As reported: the Tribunal quashed the reassessment and deleted the s.68 addition because no notice under s.143(2) had been issued before the reassessment was completed, and the assessee's participation could not cure that absence; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the cross-objection allowed. None of that has been checked against the order, which could not be found in a full-text subscription research database. No paragraph has been read, and it is not established whether the s.143(2) notice was absent altogether or merely out of time — a distinction on which the result turns.
No paragraph of the order has been read. The rule it is cited for is, however, settled at the highest level and can be run directly on that authority. In CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), decided 13 August 2019 by Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ., in Civil Appeal Nos. 6261 and 6262 of 2019, the Court held at para 9 that s.292BB creates a legal fiction curing infirmities in the service of a notice where the assessee has participated, but that it does not save the complete absence of a notice: for s.292BB to apply the notice must have emanated from the department, and the section cures only infirmities in the manner of service. On the facts there, no s.143(2) notice had ever been issued, and the quashing of the assessment by the Tribunal and the High Court was upheld (para 10). That decision affirmed Asstt. CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 182 (MP) and rests on Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 188 Taxman 113/321 ITR 362 (SC), where the omission to issue a s.143(2) notice was held not to be a curable procedural irregularity. Whether this Nagpur order applied that rule in the terms reported here cannot be checked. The decision followed or applied CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), 13 August 2019 — s.292BB does not cure the complete absence of a s.143(2) notice (para 9).
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-05-14 and is reported as ITA No. 178/NAG/2025; 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 598. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 143(2), section 292BB, section 147, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. As reported: the Tribunal quashed the reassessment and deleted the s.68 addition because no notice under s.143(2) had been issued before the reassessment was completed, and the assessee's participation could not cure that absence; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the cross-objection allowed. None of that has been checked against the order, which could not be found in a full-text subscription research database. No paragraph has been read, and it is not established whether the s.143(2) notice was absent altogether or merely out of time — a distinction on which the result turns. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Reassessment & Reopening matters, on section 143(2), section 292BB, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by ITAT Nagpur — Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Shri Khettra Mohan Roy (Accountant Member). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Take the ground in the cross-objection if you are the respondent — that is how it succeeded here. Separately, compare the amount in the reasons with the amount finally added; a large gap invites a scope challenge.
Validity check could not be completed. Downgraded from 'good law'. The order could not be found in a full-text subscription research database: searches on the party name, on the appeal number ITA No. 178/NAG/2025 and on the assessee's name with the section all failed. No later decision applying, following or affirming it was traced. The decision previously cited here as applying 'the principle' applies the rule in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal, not this order, and so is not later treatment of it. The rule itself is not in doubt: Laxman Das Khandelwal has been read in full and holds at para 9 that s.292BB cures only infirmities in the manner of service and does not save the complete absence of a notice; it affirms the Madhya Pradesh High Court and follows Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 188 Taxman 113/321 ITR 362 (SC). The statements previously made here about curative provisions said to have been inserted by the Finance Act 2026 could not be confirmed in this read and have been removed rather than repeated. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order could not be found in a full-text subscription research database. Three searches were run: the party name, which returns six unrelated records; the appeal number ITA No. 178/NAG/2025, which returns three records matched on the numerals alone; and the assessee's name with the section, which returns two unrelated Tribunal decisions. The cause title, the Members, the date of 14 May 2026, the assessment year and the figures all rest on a single news report, and no paragraph of the order has been read. The sentence previously quoted here was that report's compression of the Supreme Court's holding, not language of this order, and has been removed. Two things the report leaves open and the order would settle: whether the s.143(2) notice was absent altogether or merely issued out of time, and how a reassessment initiated on information about Rs 15 lakh came to carry an addition of Rs 2.33 crore. The authority the order is said to have followed has been read in full and can be cited directly: CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC), Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ., Civil Appeal Nos. 6261 and 6262 of 2019, decided 13 August 2019. A Tribunal decision. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
As reported: the Tribunal quashed the reassessment and deleted the s.68 addition because no notice under s.143(2) had been issued before the reassessment was completed, and the assessee's participation could not cure that absence; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the cross-objection allowed. None of that has been checked against the order, which could not be found in a full-text subscription research database. No paragraph has been read, and it is not established whether the s.143(2) notice was absent altogether or merely out of time — a distinction on which the result turns.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Is a notice under s.143(2) a jurisdictional precondition, or merely a procedural step the Assessing Officer can skip?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?