No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
No. The notice is a jurisdictional requirement and its complete absence makes the assessment void. Section 292BB is a fiction about service — for it to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department in the first place.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.) on 2019-08-13, reported as (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC); [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC); [2019] 266 Taxman 171 (SC); AIR 2019 SC 3926; Civil Appeal Nos. 6261-6262 of 2019. It bears on section 143(2), section 143(3), section 292BB of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
This is the Supreme Court authority behind the s.143(2) ground that already appears twice in this library at High Court and Tribunal level. An addition of nearly Rs 100 crores fell on it, which is a fair measure of how absolute the rule is.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A search under section 132 took place at the residential premises of the assessee, an individual carrying on a brokerage business, on 11 March 2010. He filed his return for assessment year 2010-11 on 24 August 2011 declaring income of Rs 9,35,130. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153D, with additions of Rs 9,09,110 for unexplained cash under section 69, Rs 15,09,672 for unexplained jewellery, Rs 45,00,000 for unexplained hundies and Rs 29,53,52,631 for unexplained cash receipts. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted Rs 7,48,473 of the jewellery addition and, applying a peak formula, deleted Rs 29,23,98,117 of the cash receipts addition, sustaining Rs 29,54,514. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal and the assessee filed a cross-objection that no notice under section 143(2) had ever been issued. The Tribunal upheld the cross-objection and quashed the assessment; the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal on 27 April 2018 and its review petition on 14 September 2018.
The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It treated the requirement of a notice under section 143(2) as settled by Hotel Blue Moon and addressed only the impact of section 292BB (para 8). Section 292BB creates a legal fiction by which, where the assessee has participated in the proceedings, a notice is deemed to have been duly served and he is precluded from objecting that it was not served, not served in time, or served improperly. Its scope is to make service that suffers from certain infirmities proper and valid; it does not save the complete absence of a notice. For the section to apply the notice must have emanated from the department, and it is only infirmities in the manner of service that the section cures (para 9). Since no notice under section 143(2) had ever been issued, the conclusions of the Tribunal and the High Court were correct (para 10).
The Court set out section 292BB in full, including its proviso, and read it as a deeming provision directed at service (paras 6 and 7). The Revenue's argument was that the assessee's participation in the proceedings was a complete answer; the assessee's was that a notice under section 143(2) was a prerequisite whose absence invalidated the whole proceeding (para 7). The Court held the law on the requirement of the notice to be clear from Hotel Blue Moon, where it had been held that the omission to issue a notice under section 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity and is not curable, so that the requirement cannot be dispensed with; the only question was what section 292BB had changed (paras 5 and 8). The answer turned on the difference between issue and service. The fiction operates on a notice that exists but was served late, improperly, or not at all upon the assessee; it presupposes that the notice emanated from the department. Where no notice was ever issued there is nothing for the fiction to work on, and section 292BB is not intended to cure that (para 9).
It is, however, to be noted that the Section does not save complete absence of notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself.
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. The notice is a jurisdictional requirement and its complete absence makes the assessment void. Section 292BB is a fiction about service — for it to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department in the first place. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.) and bears on section 143(2), section 143(3), section 292BB of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC); [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC); [2019] 266 Taxman 171 (SC); AIR 2019 SC 3926; Civil Appeal Nos. 6261-6262 of 2019. This is the Supreme Court authority behind the s.143(2) ground that already appears twice in this library at High Court and Tribunal level. An addition of nearly Rs 100 crores fell on it, which is a fair measure of how absolute the rule is. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Obtain the s.143(2) notice with its date and DIN, or a written statement that none was issued.
A search under section 132 took place at the residential premises of the assessee, an individual carrying on a brokerage business, on 11 March 2010. He filed his return for assessment year 2010-11 on 24 August 2011 declaring income of Rs 9,35,130. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153D, with additions of Rs 9,09,110 for unexplained cash under section 69, Rs 15,09,672 for unexplained jewellery, Rs 45,00,000 for unexplained hundies and Rs 29,53,52,631 for unexplained cash receipts. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted Rs 7,48,473 of the jewellery addition and, applying a peak formula, deleted Rs 29,23,98,117 of the cash receipts addition, sustaining Rs 29,54,514. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal and the assessee filed a cross-objection that no notice under section 143(2) had ever been issued. The Tribunal upheld the cross-objection and quashed the assessment; the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal on 27 April 2018 and its review petition on 14 September 2018. The matter was decided on 2019-08-13 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It treated the requirement of a notice under section 143(2) as settled by Hotel Blue Moon and addressed only the impact of section 292BB (para 8). Section 292BB creates a legal fiction by which, where the assessee has participated in the proceedings, a notice is deemed to have been duly served and he is precluded from objecting that it was not served, not served in time, or served improperly. Its scope is to make service that suffers from certain infirmities proper and valid; it does not save the complete absence of a notice. For the section to apply the notice must have emanated from the department, and it is only infirmities in the manner of service that the section cures (para 9). Since no notice under section 143(2) had ever been issued, the conclusions of the Tribunal and the High Court were correct (para 10).
The Court set out section 292BB in full, including its proviso, and read it as a deeming provision directed at service (paras 6 and 7). The Revenue's argument was that the assessee's participation in the proceedings was a complete answer; the assessee's was that a notice under section 143(2) was a prerequisite whose absence invalidated the whole proceeding (para 7). The Court held the law on the requirement of the notice to be clear from Hotel Blue Moon, where it had been held that the omission to issue a notice under section 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity and is not curable, so that the requirement cannot be dispensed with; the only question was what section 292BB had changed (paras 5 and 8). The answer turned on the difference between issue and service. The fiction operates on a notice that exists but was served late, improperly, or not at all upon the assessee; it presupposes that the notice emanated from the department. Where no notice was ever issued there is nothing for the fiction to work on, and section 292BB is not intended to cure that (para 9). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "It is, however, to be noted that the Section does not save complete absence of notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself." The decision followed or applied Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 188 Taxman 113/321 ITR 362 (SC).
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2019-08-13 and is reported as (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC); [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC); [2019] 266 Taxman 171 (SC); AIR 2019 SC 3926; Civil Appeal Nos. 6261-6262 of 2019. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 143(2), section 143(3), section 292BB, 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. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It treated the requirement of a notice under section 143(2) as settled by Hotel Blue Moon and addressed only the impact of section 292BB (para 8). Section 292BB creates a legal fiction by which, where the assessee has participated in the proceedings, a notice is deemed to have been duly served and he is precluded from objecting that it was not served, not served in time, or served improperly. Its scope is to make service that suffers from certain infirmities proper and valid; it does not save the complete absence of a notice. For the section to apply the notice must have emanated from the department, and it is only infirmities in the manner of service that the section cures (para 9). Since no notice under section 143(2) had ever been issued, the conclusions of the Tribunal and the High Court were correct (para 10). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 143(2), section 143(3), section 292BB of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India — Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.. 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. Raise it as a cross-objection if you are the respondent in the department's appeal — that is how it succeeded here. Keep the distinction sharp: s.292BB is about service, not about whether a notice exists.
Still good law. Followed by the Delhi High Court in PCIT v Consortium Nussli Comfort Net (25 March 2022), which held that s.292BB deals with failure of service and not failure to issue notice, and does not give power to condone delay in issuing the statutory notice. The itatonline digest records that the High Court decision below was affirmed. The page this note was read from was a commercial publisher's write-up and has been removed as a source; the status has not been re-verified against the judgment itself. 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.
Two things shape how far this case reaches. It is an affirmance: the Court took the requirement of a section 143(2) notice as settled by Hotel Blue Moon and decided only what section 292BB does, so the authority for the mandatory character of the notice remains Hotel Blue Moon. And the facts matter — the year of search fell outside the six years covered by section 153A, so the officer had made a regular assessment under section 143(3), which is why the section 143(2) notice was required at all. Section 292BB also carries a proviso, quoted but not discussed, excluding the deeming where the assessee raised the objection before the assessment was completed. 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.
The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It treated the requirement of a notice under section 143(2) as settled by Hotel Blue Moon and addressed only the impact of section 292BB (para 8). Section 292BB creates a legal fiction by which, where the assessee has participated in the proceedings, a notice is deemed to have been duly served and he is precluded from objecting that it was not served, not served in time, or served improperly. Its scope is to make service that suffers from certain infirmities proper and valid; it does not save the complete absence of a notice. For the section to apply the notice must have emanated from the department, and it is only infirmities in the manner of service that the section cures (para 9). Since no notice under section 143(2) had ever been issued, the conclusions of the Tribunal and the High Court were correct (para 10).
TaxSphere, “CIT v Laxman Das Khandelwal”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/cit-v-laxman-das-khandelwal/ (validity last checked 2026-08-25)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Commissioner (Appeals) annulled the block assessment because no section 143(2) notice was served. Can the department save it by showing the notice was issued?
No s.143(2) notice was ever issued. Does s.292BB save the assessment because you took part?
If the assessee says its original return should be treated as the return in response to s.148, must the Assessing Officer still issue a fresh s.143(2) notice?
Same point, at Tribunal level: can taking part in a reassessment cure a missing s.143(2) notice?
