A.T. Varkey ORDER
A.T. Varkey, Member (J)
1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT-2, Kolkata passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") dated 24.06.2020 for AY 2010-11.
2. At the outset, the Ld. AR Shri Devesh Podder, Advocate drew our attention to the additional ground of appeal which is as under:
"For that the order passed u/s. 263 is bad in law to the extent that the same has been passed against an in valid/null order passed by assessing officer u/s. 147/143(3). Ld. CIT intends to recall and set aside and order passed by Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) which has been completed without issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in response to the return filed and as such, since the initial assessment order is itself null and void, order passed u/s. 263 on the same is without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed. This fact emerges from the order passed by Ld. CIT itself."
3. According to the Ld. AR, the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law since the re-assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 147/143 of the Act which he [PCIT] intended to interfere was itself without jurisdiction and, therefore, null in the eyes of law and since the AO's order itself is null in the eyes of law, meaning non-est in the eyes of law, consequently the Ld. Pr. CIT could not have interfered by exercising his power u/s. 263 of the Act to again resurrect the non-est order. Since it is a pure legal issue we note that the same can be challenged before us at any stage as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Vs. CIT MANU/SC/1287/1997 : 229 ITR 383 (SC). In order to buttress his challenge raised on the aforesaid legal issue, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT at page 3 of the impugned order wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT has recorded a finding as under:
"1. ...
2. The order was passed u/s. 143(3)/147 on 18.09.2017, but no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by the officer against the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 on 19.04.2017, as required by the statute."
4. According to the Ld. AR, the Ld. Pr. CIT in order to interfere with the reassessment order of AO by exercising his power u/s. 263 of the Act had found out that AO omitted to have issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act before framing the reassessment order, when the assessee has filed the return pursuant to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the assessment order framed by the AO dated 25.07.2017 u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act without issuing man........