Supreme Court: Reassessment orders set aside for lack of mandatory notice
The Supreme Court held that failure to serve a Section 143(2) notice invalidated the income‑tax reassessment and that Section 292BB does not bar the assessee from objecting.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, delivered its judgment on 28 October 2026 in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, set aside the reassessment orders for assessment years 2008‑09, 2010‑11 and 2011‑12, and affirmed the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.
The revenue department had reopened the three assessment orders under Section 147 and issued Section 148 notices, but it omitted to serve the mandatory Section 143(2) notice. The assessee subsequently challenged the reassessment, while the Revenue relied on Section 292BB to argue that the assessee was barred from objecting to the procedural lapse, despite having cooperated and having received a Section 142(1) letter.
The Court held that a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory prerequisite for any reassessment under Sections 147 and 143(3) and that its absence renders the proceedings void. It further clarified that the deeming provision of Section 292BB applies only when a notice is actually served; a Section 142(1) letter cannot substitute for the required notice. Consequently, the Court concluded that the reassessment orders were invalid, dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and restored the earlier assessment orders.
Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Orissa Mining Corporation (2026 INSC 1171).