INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR V. DAYA THOURANI, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

MA 48/RPR/2026

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No.48/RPR/2026) filed by the Revenue against an earlier Tribunal order (ITA No.1/RPR/2026) which quashed an unsigned and blank notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had previously ruled that such a notice is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment. In the miscellaneous application, the Revenue sought to challenge this decision, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in its initial judgment. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's application was an attempt to review the decision rather than rectify a mistake, which is not permissible under the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 897087 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2026
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Leeladhar Chandrakar and Neelam Chandrakar Vs. ITO, Shri Raman Vasu Thachisaril Vs. ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur, G.T Reality Private Limited Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Raipur (C.G.), T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PIYUSH TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order

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.48/RPR/2026 (Arising out of ITA No.1/RPR/2026) Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Daya Thourani Tourani Niwas, Near MLA Rest House, Tagore Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) PAN: ABLPT6191R ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 07.10.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.48/RPR/2026 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.1/RPR/2026 for assessment years 2017-18, dated 09.03.2026. 2. In the order of the Tribunal dated 09.03.2026, mandate of Section 282A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has been upheld and it has been observed that if the said compliance of the provision is not done by the Department, in such case, it would not provide any valid inherent jurisdiction to the A.O for completing assessment. In this case, notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act had been left unsigned and blank which was violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act. In this regard, it was held and observed as follows: “5. The aforesaid decision has also been followed by this Bench in various cases, viz. (i) Leeladhar Chandrakar and Neelam Chandrakar Vs. ITO, 2025 (12) TMI 157-ITAT, Raipur; (ii) Shri Raman Vasu Thachisaril Vs. ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur, ITA No.91/RPR/2026, dated 24.02.2026; and (iii) G.T Reality Private Limited Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.95/RPR/2026, 25.02.2026. The issue is no more Res-Integra that once any notice/communication which has been issued to the assessee is left unsigned and blank by the issuing authority, in such scenario, it is violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act. 6. In the present case, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act which has been issued to the assessee was left unsigned and blank by the issuing authority, therefore, violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act does not constitute a valid notice. The said Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.48/RPR/2026 notice therefore is invalid, bad in law and void ab initio hence quashed. 7. That once the very notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is invalid, void ab initio, hence, the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act which is therefore, quashed. 8. That since the assessment itself is quashed, thereafter all other proceedings becomes non-est as per law. Since this legal contention has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, therefore all other grounds, stands academic only. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per afore-stated terms.” 3. I have heard the submissions of the parties herein and carefully considered the contents of the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue. I am of the view that the Revenue in the garb of rectification of mistake apparent from record has relied on the said provision for reviewing the order of the Tribunal which is beyond the scope and jurisdiction as per Section 254(2) of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR has failed to point out any mistake which is apparent, obvious, patent and glaring. There are series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. I do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.48/RPR/2026 a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. 4. 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.48/RPR/2026 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\" 5. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported as 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) has held that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under: “The Tribunal cannot, in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself.” 6. In the present case, the Tribunal had provided relief to the assessee in its own wisdom by holding that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act which has been issued to the assessee was left unsigned and blank by the issuing authority, therefore, violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act does not constitute a valid notice and the said notice is therefore is invalid, bad in law and void ab initio, hence quashed. That the Revenue in the garb of Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No.48/RPR/2026 filing the captioned miscellaneous application is only seeking review of the decision of the Tribunal which is not permissible and beyond the jurisdiction as envisaged u/s.254(2) of the Act. Hence, it is held that the miscellaneous application preferred by the Revenue being devoid of any merits is dismissed. 7. Before parting, I would also mention here that vide amendment by the Finance Act, 2026 w.r.e.f. 01.04.2021, Section 292BC is introduced which reads as follows: “292BC. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any judgment, order or decree of any Court, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that any approval given by an income-tax authority in relation to any assessment, reassessment or recomputation proceedings under this Act shall be deemed to be administrative and supervisory in nature and shall not be invalid or shall not be deemed to be invalid by reason of any insufficiency of the reasons recorded or by reason of any defect in the form or manner of its authentication or communication including whether digital signature have been appended to such approval or not, where such approval is granted electronically.] For clarification, this particular provision applies only to approvals given by the Income Tax Authority which encompasses approvals u/s.151, 151D etc. of the Act. However, this provision has not taken away the authoritative compliance of Section 282A(1) of the Act with respect to other notices/communications from Department to assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA No.48/RPR/2026 8. In the present case, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue pertains to the unsigned notice u/s.143(2) of the Act which therefore, was held violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act in the impugned order. The above referred provision of Section 292BC of the Act in no way restricts the applicability of Section 282A(1) of the Act on issues other than approvals. 9. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 9th day of October, 2026 Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 9th October, 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 SAMI RAN BERA Digitally signed by SAMIRAN BERA Date: 2026.10.09 12:16:59 +05'30' "