NARENDRASINH PRAVINSINH JADEJA,VADODARA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

MA 45/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by Narendrasinh Pravinsinh Jadeja against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had earlier dismissed his appeal concerning the validity of a notice issued under section 148 for the assessment year 2011-12. The applicant contended that the notice was invalid as the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were unsigned. However, the Tribunal found that the reasons were signed digitally and physically, referencing the order sheet and documents produced during the hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, affirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705948 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Vikas Gupta vs. UOI-(2022) 289 Taxman 443 (All), PCIT vs. Prahlad Singh - ITA No.91 of 2019 dated 27.02.2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARGOVIND SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH J. SHAH
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Shri Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Narendrasinh Pravinsinh Jadeja, 1, Shreenath Sanidhya, Opp. Ratnakar Duplex, Gotri, Baroda-390021 PAN: ADJPJ0879N (Appellant) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Rushin Patel & Shri Jimi Patel, A.Rs Revenue by: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13-06-2025 Date of pronouncement : 01-07-2025 आदेश/ORDER This Miscellaneous Application has been filed the assessee in respect of the order dated 21-05-2025 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. AR submitted that the applicant herein is the original appellant, who has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of learned CIT (Appeals) for Asst. Year 2011-12 on two grounds, which include the challenge to the validity of notice issued u/s. 148 dated 28.03.2018. MA No.45/Ahd/2025 (In ITA No. 697/Ahd/2023) Assessment Year 2011-12 M.A. No. 45/Ahd/2025 Narendrasinh Pravinsinh Jadeja, A.Y. 2011-12 2 3. The Ld. AR submitted that during the course of hearing of appeal held on 19.03.2025, the Applicant had contended that notice issued u/s. 148 dated 28.03.2018 was invalid on the ground that reasons recorded are not signed, and accordingly, notice u/s 148 issued on the basis of unsigned reasons invalid, which consequently makes the entire reassessment including the order passed u/s 143(3) rw.s. 147 dated 20.11.2018 void ab- initio. To buttress the aforesaid contentions, the Applicant relied on following two judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. (i) Vikas Gupta vs. UOI-(2022) 289 Taxman 443 (All) (ii) PCIT vs. Prahlad Singh - ITA No.91 of 2019 dated 27.02.2020 In addition to that, the Ld. A.R. referred the copy of reasons recorded, which is produced by the ld DR in view of the direction issued by the Tribunal vide order sheet entries dated 05.09.2024 and 06.02.2025, that the copy which is produced before the Tribunal forming part of assessment record and copy of which is given to the Applicant is unsigned. The Ld. A.R. further stated that the Ld. A.R. brought to the notice of the Tribunal that original copy of reasons recorded was completely unsigned and the Respondent on his own added the jurisdiction of ITO along with his name and mark Sd/- in the typed copy of reasons recorded. (This fact does not take away from the fact that the reasons remained unsigned). Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. stated that notice issued u/s. 148 may be declared as invalid for want of signature on reasons recorded, which is a mandatory requirement. M.A. No. 45/Ahd/2025 Narendrasinh Pravinsinh Jadeja, A.Y. 2011-12 3 4. The Ld. AR submitted that unfortunately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Applicant vide order dated 21.05.2025 by observing as under: “8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR produced the documents related to the complete copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment as well as the copy of the approval accorded by the concerned authorities u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the course of hearing. The order sheet details were submitted for approval as noted in the order sheet attached to the said documents. It is pertinent to note that the reasons were duly signed by the Assessing Officer and the show cause notice dated 11.10.2018 was signed digitally by the same Assessing Officer and the timing for the same is mentioned at the bottom of the said document/show cause notice itself. Thus, the contentions of the Ld. AR does not sustain as the relevant reasons and the subsequent show cause notice and statutory notices were rightly signed digitally by the Assessing Officer. The case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR that of Hon'ble Punjab and Harayana High in case of PCIT vs. Prahalad Singh (ITA No. 91 of 2019 order dated 27.02.2020) and the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Vikas Gupta vs. UOI (2022) 142 taxmann.com 253 (All.HC), both will not be applicable in the present assessee's case as the reasons as well as the reasons were duly signed by the Assessing Officer and the show course notice dated 11.10.2018 was signed digitally by the same Assessing Officer Thus, the Assessment order is valid and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).\" 5. The Ld. AR submitted that on perusal of the aforesaid finding given by the Tribunal, it can be seen that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Applicant by observing that reasons recorded was duly signed and that too, the same was signed electronically. In the humble submission of the Applicant, the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the records as reasons recorded were neither signed physically nor signed electronically, which can be established on perusal of the documents placed on record at Annexure-A to miscellaneous application, which is also forming part of records of the proceedings of the Tribunal. Thus, the Ld. A.R. prayed that the Tribunal committed a mistake, which is apparent on record M.A. No. 45/Ahd/2025 Narendrasinh Pravinsinh Jadeja, A.Y. 2011-12 4 within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act, and accordingly, the same requires recall of the order exercising the power conferred upon the Hon'ble Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that in the premises aforesaid, the above order may be recalled and it may be held that reasons recorded were unsigned, which makes the notice u/s 148 and consequential reassessment proceeding invalid and void ab- initio, and thereby the Tribunal may allow the appeal of the Applicant on Ground No.1 itself. 7. Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee/applicant is seeking review of the order dated 21-05-2025 and hence the present Miscellaneous Application be dismissed. 8. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The ld. A.R. submitted that at the time of hearing the ld. A.R. brought to the notice that original copy of reasons recorded was completely un-signed and the respondent on his own added the jurisdiction ITO along with his name and marked signed in the top of copy of reasons recorded. The page no. 14 has been verified and it can be seen that the said document is digitally signed and half portion of the bottom of instructions of page 14 has not been taken into consideration by the ld. A.R. which clearly sets out that the document was digitally signed. So it cannot be stated that the reasons were un- signed as the covering letter itself clearly states that the basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of income was attached are signed by the concerned A.O.. The mark ‘signed’ cannot be termed as un-signed and in fact the records shown by the assessee/ld. A.R. at the time of hearing has been M.A. No. 45/Ahd/2025 Narendrasinh Pravinsinh Jadeja, A.Y. 2011-12 5 taken into consideration and after considering the decisions of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of PCIT vs. Prahlad Singh and decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Vikas Gupta vs. UOI, both the decisions were taken into consideration and the difference of facts in the present assessee’s case and the reasons recorded in present assessee’s case has been taken into consideration and therefore the assessee at this juncture is seeking review of the order dated 21- 05-2015 which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 7. In result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01-07-2025 Sd/- (Suchitra Kamble) Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 01/07/2025 आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल प अ\u000fे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील\u0012य अ\u0013धकरण, अहमदाबाद "