Amit Gaba, Sonipat V. ITO WARD - 37(1), New Delhi

ITA 924/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4294 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member ITA No. 924/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Amit Gaba, Flat No. 603, Majestic Tower, Omaxe Height, Sector-8, Sonipat, Haryana-131001 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKLPG5197M Assessee by : Sh. Akshat Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2022 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-13, Delhi dated 06.12.2019. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in accepting the report of the AO without forwarded and confronted to the Appellant, whereas the facts of case are that the assessment order served without signature and demand notice served without signature is no order and no demand notice is still in persistence. Hence the appellant prays that order of Ld. CIT (A) may kindly be quashed as the order of the AO without signature is no order. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in accepting and in supporting the A.O.’s report without evidence and without confronted to the appellant that the ld. A.O. has failed to prove that the notice under section 148 was issued within time limit prescribed under section 149 of the I.T. Act. There was no dispatch ITA No. 924/Del/2020 Amit Gaba 2 number on the notice before alleged affixture of notice. The affixture of notice was a fake event. Hence the appellant prays that order of Ld. CIT (A) and order of A.O. may kindly be quashed. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in dismissing the ground of appeal of the appellant and supporting the action of AO without considering the facts that the Ld. AO itself admitted in the assessment order that “On 08.12.2017 assessee has send copy of return on mail Id of undersigned. Print out of this return has been taken out and placed in file. Since the Mail Id of the AO is an official instrument therefore rejection of ITR is bed in law. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts confirming the action of the Ld AO in making the addition of Rs.800000 under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment in commodity Exchange, without appreciating the fact that all amount had been invested out of the Bank account. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 800000 made in respect of investment in trading be deleted. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1475500 out of total addition of Rs.2275000 made by the Ld AO under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposit in SB account of bank without appreciating that all the money has been rotated through debit and credit entries in the bank account and having proper source of cash deposits. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 1475500 made in respect of cash deposit in the bank account may please be deleted.” 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and accepting the report of the AO without forwarded and controverted to the appeal whereas the facts of the case is are that the Assessment Order served ITA No. 924/Del/2020 Amit Gaba 3 without signature and demand notice was also without signature and unsigned Assessment Order and demand notice has no legal sanctity being bad in law. Therefore, the assessment as well as first appeal order may kindly be annulled. The ld. Counsel also submitted that even first appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Delhi-13 is also not signed. Therefore, the order of the authorities below my kindly be annulled being passed without signature. 4. The ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman Vs CIT reported at 1996 scale (1) 801 and order of Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Vijay Corporation Vs ITO wherein the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal by referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman (supra) has allowed relief to the assessee after noting that in absence of signed Assessment Order. The assessment is in valid. 5. Replying to the above, the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has provided signed copies of assessment as well first appellate order. Therefore, legal ground of assessment do not survive for adjudication. 6. Placing rejoinder to the above, the ld. AR again drew our attention to the copies of the Assessment Order dated 21.12.2017 and First Appellate Order dated 06.12.2019 and submitted that there is signature on Assessment Order, demand notice as well as First Appellate Order by the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) respectively. Therefore, the legal ground of assessee is ITA No. 924/Del/2020 Amit Gaba 4 squarely covered in favour of the order by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman which was followed by Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vijay Corporation. 7. On careful consideration of submission, I observe that their Lordship speaking for the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kavia Devi categorically held that when the Assessment Order on record of the revenue bears no signature there is no signed copy of assessment form than it has to held that the assessee neither received valid Assessment Order nor the valid demand notice. Therefore, it was held that the assessment order and demand notice without signature of Assessing Officer are in valid. 8. As I have noted above, the copies of the Assessment Order, demand notice as well as First Appellate Order clearly reveals that the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) has not put signature thereon. Therefore, in view of proposition rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman (supra) and order of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vijay Vs ITO (supra), I held that impugned Assessment Order and demand notice are in valid. Therefore, legal ground no. 1 of assessee is allowed. Since, in view of foregoing discussion, I have concluded that the impugned Assessment Order and all consequent proceedings are in valid. Therefore, other grounds of assessee on merits do not survive on adjudication and thus the same are not being adjudicated. ITA No. 924/Del/2020 Amit Gaba 5 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22/09/2022. Sd/- (C. M. Garg) Judicial Member Dated: 22/09/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR