DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR V. MAA SHARDA CORPORATION, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

MA 33/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, which had quashed an assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 due to non-service of notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had previously found that the notice was not validly served as per the prescribed mode of transmission, making the assessment order arbitrary, bad in law, and void ab initio. The Revenue's application was dismissed as it was deemed to be an attempt to review the Tribunal's earlier decision, which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839570 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.33/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.135/RPR/2025) Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथȸ / Applicant बनाम / V/s. Maa Sharda Corporation 16A, Raj Vatika, Baloda Bazar Road, Samariya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) PAN: AASFM4607R ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : None (petition filed) Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 20.02.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.33/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.135/RPR/2025 for assessment years 2017-18 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 21.07.2025. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee. However an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record. 3. The Revenue by filing the captioned miscellaneous application raised following grounds: “i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee u/s. 144 of the Act, dated 05.12.2019 for A.Y.2017-18 for non- service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, contrary to facts on record that notice was physically served upon the assessee and is valid service of notice as per provision of Section 282 of the Act? ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order accepting the plea of the assessee of non- service of notice u/s 142(1), ignoring the facts on records that the assessee has not raised such objection before completion of the assessment proceeding? Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.33/RPR/2025 iii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in ignoring the deeming provision of section 292BB, which states that the notice shall be deemed to be served upon the assessee within time in accordance with the provisions of Act, when the assessee has cooperated in assessment proceedings without any objection? iv. Any other ground(s) that may be adduced at the time of hearing.” 4. In this case, the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.07.2025 had provided relief to the assessee observing as follows: “5. The facts involved in the present appeal clearly shows that there has not been any valid service of notice to the assessee in accordance with the prescribed mode of transmission between the Income tax authority and the assessee as per provision of Section 144B clause (6)(ii)(a) of the Act. In fact, the notice in the case of the assessee as evident from the Income Tax portal does not spell out viz. (i) who has sent the said notice? (ii) to whom notice has been sent?; (ii) subject of the notice, therefore, it can be construed that such notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act has not been issued at all leaving apart serving of the same to the assessee. That in absence of any evidence contrary to the contention placed on record by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and taking guidance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, I hold that for such non issuance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and non serving of such notice to the assessee as per valid mode of transmission makes the assessment order arbitrary, bad in law and void ab initio and accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed. I order accordingly. 6. Since the assessment is quashed thereafter all the other proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. As the legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee therefore the grounds on merits becomes academic only. 7. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.33/RPR/2025 5. The Tribunal in its wisdom and on proper examination of the documents placed on record and relying on various judicial pronouncements, had held that for such non-issuance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and non-serving of such notice to the assessee as per valid mode of transmission makes the assessment order arbitrary, bad in law and void ab initio and accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Coming to the contents of the miscellaneous application of the Department, I am of the considered view that the Revenue in the garb of the present miscellaneous application has sought review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible within the purview of Section 254(2) of the Act. As the Revenue had failed to point out any mistake which is apparent, obvious, patent and glaring from record, therefore, I am of the considered view that the Revenue in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous application is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.135/RPR/2025, dated 21.07.2025 which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Tribunal as envisaged u/s.254(2) of the Act. My aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.33/RPR/2025 with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that.” 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No.33/RPR/2025 8. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 26th day of February, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 26th February, 2026 SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "