No s.143(2) notice was ever issued. Does s.292BB save the assessment because you took part?
No. Section 292BB reaches only the manner in which a notice was served and cannot cure the absence of a notice altogether — but that fuller proposition is the Tribunal's, reproduced in this judgment at para 8, and is better cited to CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (SC) and Pr. CIT v. Silver Line (Delhi). This Court's own step was narrower: no notice under s.143(2) having been issued at all, the question of a notice being deemed to be a valid notice under s.292BB did not arise, and the appeals were dismissed as raising no substantial question of law.
Decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma) on 2024-10-28, reported as Delhi High Court, 28 October 2024 — ITA 414/2024, ITA 416/2024, ITA 418/2024 and ITA 424/2024, against a common order of the Delhi Tribunal dated 26 September 2022 in ITA Nos. 1829 to 1832/Del/2009 for assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01; no law-report citation was traced, and 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2434 is a news-service reference rather than a law report.. It bears on section 143(2), section 292BB, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Reassessment & Reopening matters.
The distinction that runs through this whole area: s.292BB cures how a notice reached you, never whether it existed. It is worth checking the file for the s.143(2) notice before arguing anything else.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Oracle Systems Corporation faced reassessment for assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01, the Revenue alleging unreported royalty income on global deals utilised in India. The ITAT quashed the reassessment on finding no evidence that a valid notice under s.143(2) had been issued and served on the assessee. The Revenue appealed.
All four appeals were dismissed as raising no substantial question of law (paras 11 and 12). The questions common to assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 concerned the Tribunal's setting aside of the reopening under s.147; those had already been answered against the Revenue by this Court's order of 12 August 2024, and counsel for the Revenue accepted that they did not survive (paras 6 and 7). The separate question, raised only in ITA No. 418/2024 for assessment year 2000-01, was whether the failure to issue a notice under s.143(2) was made good by the assessee's participation in the proceedings. The Court's own answer is a single sentence at para 10: because no notice under s.143(2) had been issued at all, the question of a notice being deemed to be a valid notice under s.292BB does not arise. It also recorded that the Revenue did not dispute that the point was covered by an earlier decision of the same Court, as the Tribunal had noted (para 9).
The Court did not restate the law at length. It set out the Revenue's contention that, the assessee having participated in the proceedings, the failure to issue a notice under s.143(2) would not be fatal, and reproduced the Tribunal's observations, which rested on this Court's decision in Pr. CIT v. Silver Line and on the proposition that omission to issue a notice under s.143(2) within the prescribed time is fatal (para 8). Counsel for the Revenue did not counter that the issue was covered by that earlier decision of this Court (para 9). The Court then gave its own reason: no notice under s.143(2) had been issued in this case, so the question of a notice being deemed to be a valid notice under s.292BB does not arise (para 10). The Silver Line reasoning therefore reaches this judgment through the Tribunal's order that the Court reproduced and through the Revenue's concession, not through any fresh construction of s.292BB by this Court.
It is also material to note that in the present case, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act had been issued and, therefore, the question of notice being deemed to be considered as a valid notice under Section 292BB of the Act does not arise.
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 reaches only the manner in which a notice was served and cannot cure the absence of a notice altogether — but that fuller proposition is the Tribunal's, reproduced in this judgment at para 8, and is better cited to CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (SC) and Pr. CIT v. Silver Line (Delhi). This Court's own step was narrower: no notice under s.143(2) having been issued at all, the question of a notice being deemed to be a valid notice under s.292BB did not arise, and the appeals were dismissed as raising no substantial question of law. This was decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma) and bears on section 143(2), section 292BB, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Delhi High Court, 28 October 2024 — ITA 414/2024, ITA 416/2024, ITA 418/2024 and ITA 424/2024, against a common order of the Delhi Tribunal dated 26 September 2022 in ITA Nos. 1829 to 1832/Del/2009 for assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01; no law-report citation was traced, and 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2434 is a news-service reference rather than a law report.. The distinction that runs through this whole area: s.292BB cures how a notice reached you, never whether it existed. It is worth checking the file for the s.143(2) notice before arguing anything else. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask for a copy of the s.143(2) notice with its date and DIN, and check it against the record.
Oracle Systems Corporation faced reassessment for assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01, the Revenue alleging unreported royalty income on global deals utilised in India. The ITAT quashed the reassessment on finding no evidence that a valid notice under s.143(2) had been issued and served on the assessee. The Revenue appealed. The matter was decided on 2024-10-28 by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma). On those facts the High Court held as follows. All four appeals were dismissed as raising no substantial question of law (paras 11 and 12). The questions common to assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 concerned the Tribunal's setting aside of the reopening under s.147; those had already been answered against the Revenue by this Court's order of 12 August 2024, and counsel for the Revenue accepted that they did not survive (paras 6 and 7). The separate question, raised only in ITA No. 418/2024 for assessment year 2000-01, was whether the failure to issue a notice under s.143(2) was made good by the assessee's participation in the proceedings. The Court's own answer is a single sentence at para 10: because no notice under s.143(2) had been issued at all, the question of a notice being deemed to be a valid notice under s.292BB does not arise. It also recorded that the Revenue did not dispute that the point was covered by an earlier decision of the same Court, as the Tribunal had noted (para 9).
The Court did not restate the law at length. It set out the Revenue's contention that, the assessee having participated in the proceedings, the failure to issue a notice under s.143(2) would not be fatal, and reproduced the Tribunal's observations, which rested on this Court's decision in Pr. CIT v. Silver Line and on the proposition that omission to issue a notice under s.143(2) within the prescribed time is fatal (para 8). Counsel for the Revenue did not counter that the issue was covered by that earlier decision of this Court (para 9). The Court then gave its own reason: no notice under s.143(2) had been issued in this case, so the question of a notice being deemed to be a valid notice under s.292BB does not arise (para 10). The Silver Line reasoning therefore reaches this judgment through the Tribunal's order that the Court reproduced and through the Revenue's concession, not through any fresh construction of s.292BB by this Court. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "It is also material to note that in the present case, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act had been issued and, therefore, the question of notice being deemed to be considered as a valid notice under Section 292BB of the Act does not arise." The decision followed or applied Pr. CIT v. Silver Line [2016] 65 taxmann.com 137 / [2016] 383 ITR 455 / [2016] 283 CTR 148 (Delhi), decided 4 November 2015.
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-10-28 and is reported as Delhi High Court, 28 October 2024 — ITA 414/2024, ITA 416/2024, ITA 418/2024 and ITA 424/2024, against a common order of the Delhi Tribunal dated 26 September 2022 in ITA Nos. 1829 to 1832/Del/2009 for assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01; no law-report citation was traced, and 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2434 is a news-service reference rather than a law report.. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 143(2), section 292BB, section 148, 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. All four appeals were dismissed as raising no substantial question of law (paras 11 and 12). The questions common to assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 concerned the Tribunal's setting aside of the reopening under s.147; those had already been answered against the Revenue by this Court's order of 12 August 2024, and counsel for the Revenue accepted that they did not survive (paras 6 and 7). The separate question, raised only in ITA No. 418/2024 for assessment year 2000-01, was whether the failure to issue a notice under s.143(2) was made good by the assessee's participation in the proceedings. The Court's own answer is a single sentence at para 10: because no notice under s.143(2) had been issued at all, the question of a notice being deemed to be a valid notice under s.292BB does not arise. It also recorded that the Revenue did not dispute that the point was covered by an earlier decision of the same Court, as the Tribunal had noted (para 9). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Reassessment & Reopening matters, on section 143(2), section 292BB, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Delhi High Court — Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. 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. Check the date against the statutory time limit as well as its existence — both are separate grounds. Take the ground even if you participated; participation is what s.292BB addresses, and it does not reach absence.
The judgment itself could not be reached, so no check was possible. This judgment could not be found in a subscription case-law database on six searches, so no citator entry, parallel citation or later treatment of it could be checked; the database does carry other decisions of this assessee, including Delhi High Court decisions of 8 October 2015 and 30 May 2017 and Delhi Tribunal decisions of 2 January 2025 and 2 March 2026. The proposition it is reported to apply is separately well founded, and both supporting authorities have now been checked. Pr. CIT v. Silver Line [2016] 65 taxmann.com 137 / 383 ITR 455 / 283 CTR 148 (Delhi), 4 November 2015, decided in favour of the assessee, holds that merely because an assessee participated in proceedings following a notice under s.148, the mandatory requirement of a notice under s.143(2) before finalising the order is not obviated; its report carries no citator banner recording any reversal or Supreme Court outcome, so it stands. Above it stands CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 / [2019] 266 Taxman 171 / [2019] 417 ITR 325 (SC), Civil Appeal Nos. 6261 and 6262 of 2019, decided 13 August 2019 by Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ., read here in full. The Court held at para 9 that s.292BB does not save the complete absence of notice: for it to apply the notice must have emanated from the department, it is only infirmities in the manner of service that the section cures, and it is not intended to cure the complete absence of notice itself. On that footing the Court affirmed, at para 10, the concurrent findings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Tribunal that no notice under s.143(2) had ever been issued and that the assessment was therefore without jurisdiction, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals; its case review records Asstt. CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 182 (MP) as affirmed. The Finance Act 2026 validating provisions run the other way on adjacent defects - s.292BA on defects in the document identification number, retrospective from 1 October 2019, and s.292BC on approvals under ss.148, 148A, 151 and 153D, retrospective from 1 April 2021 - but neither extends to non-issuance of a notice under s.143(2). None of that is later treatment of this judgment. 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 judgment has now been obtained and read in full on a primary source, and the particulars are settled: Delhi High Court, Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma, JJ., 28 October 2024, ITA 414/2024 heard with ITA 416/2024, ITA 418/2024 and ITA 424/2024, against a common order of the Delhi Tribunal dated 26 September 2022 in ITA Nos. 1829 to 1832/Del/2009 for assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01. Three things to keep straight when citing it. The s.143(2) and s.292BB question arises only in ITA No. 418/2024 for assessment year 2000-01; the other three appeals turned on the reopening under s.147, which this Court had already decided against the Revenue on 12 August 2024 and which the Revenue's counsel accepted did not survive. The Court's own reasoning on the point is the single sentence at para 10 — no notice under s.143(2) having been issued, the question of a notice being deemed valid under s.292BB does not arise — while the fuller statement that omission to issue the notice is fatal comes from the Tribunal's order reproduced at para 8, which relied on this Court's decision in Pr. CIT v. Silver Line. And the appeals were dismissed as raising no substantial question of law, so this is a decision applying settled law rather than one that settles it. The supporting authorities remain the stronger citations: Pr. CIT v. Silver Line [2016] 65 taxmann.com 137 / 383 ITR 455 / 283 CTR 148 (Delhi), 4 November 2015, and above it CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 417 ITR 325 / 108 taxmann.com 183 / 266 Taxman 171 (SC), 13 August 2019, which held at para 9 that s.292BB cures only infirmities in the manner of service and 'is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself'. High Court — binding in Delhi, persuasive elsewhere. The judgment has now been obtained and read in full on a primary source, which settles the date, the Bench, the appeal numbers, the Tribunal order appealed against and the assessment years. It is a short judgment: the reopening questions for assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 had already been decided by this Court's order of 12 August 2024, and the s.143(2) question survived only in ITA No. 418/2024 for assessment year 2000-01, so the decision is authority on that narrow point and on nothing else. The judgment prints no law-report citation and none was traced; no later decision citing it and no special leave petition against it was found. 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.
All four appeals were dismissed as raising no substantial question of law (paras 11 and 12). The questions common to assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 concerned the Tribunal's setting aside of the reopening under s.147; those had already been answered against the Revenue by this Court's order of 12 August 2024, and counsel for the Revenue accepted that they did not survive (paras 6 and 7). The separate question, raised only in ITA No. 418/2024 for assessment year 2000-01, was whether the failure to issue a notice under s.143(2) was made good by the assessee's participation in the proceedings. The Court's own answer is a single sentence at para 10: because no notice under s.143(2) had been issued at all, the question of a notice being deemed to be a valid notice under s.292BB does not arise. It also recorded that the Revenue did not dispute that the point was covered by an earlier decision of the same Court, as the Tribunal had noted (para 9).
TaxSphere, “CIT (International Taxation) v Oracle Systems Corporation”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/cit-v-oracle-systems-corporation/ (validity last checked 2026-08-19)
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.
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?
No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
Same point, at Tribunal level: can taking part in a reassessment cure a missing s.143(2) notice?
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?
