Summary
- The Mumbai ITAT has quashed a reassessment order for AY 2009-10, ruling that the Department failed to prove issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2).
- In the case of Ramesh C. Salecha HUF v. ITO, the Tribunal emphasized that mere participation in proceedings does not cure the absence of such a notice.
- The Tribunal highlighted that Section 292BB cannot validate a non-existent notice, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Lakshman Das Khandelwal.
- This decision underscores the necessity for strict adherence to statutory procedures in tax assessments, potentially impacting future reassessments lacking proper documentation.
Join the discussion ā sign up to comment, upvote, and save articles.