AMBAR NATH CHAKRAVARTY,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1765/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Ambar Nath Chakravarty against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the reopening of his income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The reopening was based on a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was later contested due to its unsigned status. The Tribunal examined the procedural validity of the notice, referencing instructions from the CBDT and relevant judicial precedents, ultimately finding the notice invalid and the subsequent assessment order bad in law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126279 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, B.K.Gooyee Vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHUMITA DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH GHOSH
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Dismissed; HRA; Department; ADIT

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,“एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ,कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1765/KOL/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Ambar NathChakravarty C/o S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Vs ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata PAN No. :AEIPC 9249 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue by : Ms. MadhumitaDas, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.06.2024, passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mumbai, for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The only issue pressed at the time of hearing was against the order of ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of the assessment which was based upon the invalid notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 27.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.1,59,010/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter after receiving credible information from the ADIT(Inv.), Unit-2(2), Mumbai, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 28.03.2018, a copy of which is attached at page 79 of the paper book. The AO framed the assessment after taking into account the contentions and submissions of ITA No.1765/KOL/2024 2 the assessee thereby making addition of Rs.15,38,927/- on account of unexplained money. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we note that undisputedly the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on 28.03.2018 is unsigned. The said notice was issued through e-proceedings. For the sake of ready reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow :- ITA No.1765/KOL/2024 3 5. We find merit in the contention of the ld. counsel that under instruction No.1/2018[F.No.225/157/2017-ITA.II), dated 12-2-2018, all departmental orders/communications/notices being issued to the assessee through the ‘e-proceedings’ facility are to be signed digitally by the Assessing Officer. The notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is invalid under the said instruction of the CBDT. In our opinion, the said notice is invalid and, therefore, the assessment framed is also invalid and bad in law. This contention of the assessee finds support on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, reported in [2023] 150 taxmann.com 60 (Bombay), wherein it has been held that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act upon the assessee without signature of Assessing Officer affixed on it either digitally or manually, was invalid and the same would not vest Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess income of the assessee. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of B.K.Gooyee Vs. CIT, reported in [1966] 62 ITR 109 (CAL), held that it is incumbent upon the ITO to place his signature on the notice issued. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to quash the reopening of the assessment made by the AO as well as order framed consequentially. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.1765/KOL/2024 4 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/04/2025. Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाताKolkata; ददनाांक Dated 21/04/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेशकीप्रनतललपपअग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 5. विभागीयप्रविविवि, आयकरअपीलीयअविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपतप्रतत //True Copy// "