N.V. VASUDEVAN, J.M.: These two appeals are filed by assessee against common order dt. 28th Oct., 2003, of CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi, relating to asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Before we take up main grounds of appeal for adjudication, we have to consider prayer for admission of additional grounds on behalf of assessee. assessment for both years had been completed under s. 147 of Act. additional ground of appeal raised by assessee reads as follows: "That impugned assessment order has been framed under s. 143(3) without assuming jurisdiction to frame such assessment inasmuch as notice under s. 143(2) was not issued and served within statutorily allowable period of 12 months from end of month in which return under s. 148 was filed." In additional ground, assessee has prayed for declaring assessment framed under s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) as without jurisdiction on ground that no notice under s. 143(2) of Act was served within statutory period of 12 months from end of month in which return under s. 148 was filed. learned counsel for assessee submitted that additional ground sought to be raised is purely legal question and can be decided on facts already available on record. He also submitted that in view of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249: (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), additional ground may b e admitted for adjudication. learned Departmental Representative, however, opposed prayer for admission of additional ground. He submitted that these grounds were not raised before lower authorities and, therefore, do not arise out of order of CIT(A). He submitted that assessee should not be permitted to raise new ground of appeal before Tribunal for first time. We have considered submissions of learned Departmental Representative. In our view, additional ground sought to be raised by assessee, can be adjudicated on basis of material already available on record. Since this ground is legal ground, it can be raised at any point of time. As facts necessary for adjudication of this legal ground are already available on record, keeping in mind decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), we deem it proper to admit additional ground for adjudication. additional ground is, therefore, admitted for adjudication. facts which are relevant for purpose of adjudication of this ground are that assessee had filed letter dt. 28th June, 2001, in response to notice under s. 148 of Act, requesting AO to treat return originally filed for asst. yr. 1999-2000, on 29th Nov., 1999, as return filed in response to notice under s. 148 of Act. For first time, notice under s. 143(2) was issued and served on assessee only on 23rd of Aug., 2002. proviso to s. 143(2) contemplates service of notice under s. 143(2) within period of 12 months from end of month in which return is filed. In this case, period of 12 months as laid down in proviso to s. 143(2), expires on 30th June, 2002. Admittedly, no notice under s. 143(2) had been issued and served on assessee on or before 30th June, 2002. As far as asst. yr. 2000-01 is concerned, assessee had filed his original return of income on 1st Oct., 2000, which was requested to be treated as return filed in response to notice under s. 148 vide assessee s letter dt. 28th June, 2001. first notice under s. 143(2) was issued and served on assessee on 11th Dec., 2002. period of 12 months as contemplated by proviso to s. 143(2), in this assessment year, is on or before 30th Aug., 2002. Admittedly, no notice had been served on assessee under s. 143(2) on or before 30th Aug., 2002. In light of aforesaid factual position on which there was no dispute between parties, we have to hold that AO did not have jurisdiction to frame order of assessment under s. 147 without complying with requirement of service of notice under proviso to s. 143(2) within time prescribed by said proviso. As to whether provisions of s. 143(2) apply to case of proceedings under s. 147 had been considered by Special Bench of this Tribunal in case of Raj Kumar Chawla & Ors. vs. ITO (2005) 92 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1245. Special Bench has held that provisions of s. 143 including proviso would be applicable to assessment/reassessment under s. 147 and that if compliance of proviso to s. 143(2) is not made, AO will not be entitled to make order of assessment. In view of aforesaid decision of Special Bench, we hold that assessments framed in both assessment years, deserve to be annulled and they are accordingly annulled. Since appeals of assessee are being allowed on preliminary issue, no adjudication on other grounds of appeal raised by assessee are taken up for adjudication. In result, appeals by assessee are allowed. *** SAT NARAIN v. INCOME TAX OFFICER