Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: October 28, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar (Appellant) vs Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (Respondent); also appeals involving Bijoy Kishore Mohanty.
  • Appeals: Civil Appeal No. … of 2026 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14546 of 2023) and related appeals (SLP Nos. 25931, 25932 of 2026; 3350 of 2024; 25882 of 2026).
  • Assessment years in dispute: 2008‑09, 2010‑11, 2011‑12 for Orissa Mining; 2009‑10, 2010‑11 for Bijoy Kishore Mohanty.
  • Core legal questions: (i) Does Section 292BB bar an assessee from objecting to non‑service of a notice under Section 143(2) when the assessee has cooperated in reassessment? (ii) Is a notice under Section 143(2) required when the earlier return filed under Section 139 is treated as a response to a notice under Section 148? (iii) Does a letter under Section 142(1) satisfy the mandatory requirement of a Section 143(2) notice?
  • Procedural background: Returns filed under Section 139 were assessed under Section 143(3). Revenue later reopened assessments under Section 147, issued notices under Section 148, and the assessee opted to treat the original return as the response to the Section 148 notice. No notice under Section 143(2) was issued; reassessment proceeded with notices under Section 142(1).
  • Lower tribunals: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside reassessment orders citing lack of Section 143(2) notice; High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision.
  • Revenue’s argument: Reliance on Section 292BB, claiming that participation by the assessee deemed the notice as served.
  • Judicial analysis: The Court reiterated that Section 143(2) notice is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with; Section 292BB creates a deeming fiction only when a notice has actually been issued, which was not the case here. Citing Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 3 SCC 259 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2021) 18 SCC 691, the Court held that absence of the notice vitiates the reassessment.
  • The Court clarified that a letter under Section 142(1) does not satisfy the statutory requirement of a Section 143(2) notice; participation alone does not invoke the deeming provision of Section 292BB.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed all the civil appeals, affirming the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court that the reassessment proceedings were void due to the non‑issuance of a mandatory Section 143(2) notice.

Topics: Income Tax, Section 143(2) Notice