RAJESH KARYANA STORE,MUNICIPAL BAZAR V. ITO, WARD 1, PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT

ITA 530/ASR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Karyana Store, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer, which included an unsigned notice under section 148 and an inadequate response time for a notice under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that both the initial assessment and the appellate order were passed ex-parte, without merit discussion, leading to the decision to remand the case for a thorough re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837619 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 530/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rajesh Karyana Store, Pathankot, Punjab 145001 [PAN: AAHFR 5945G] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Pathankot (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 17.02.2026 19.02.2026 ORDER Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year: 2015-16. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under: Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 530/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 “1) That CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2021 is unsigned and therefore invalid. 2) That CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the notice issued under section 148A(b) is illegal, void and liable to be quashed as the time granted to the appellant for furnishing reply was less than the statutory minimum period prescribed under the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to provide the mandatory minimum period of seven days (or as prescribed under the proviso to section 148A(b))” 3. The registry has pointed out the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal by 117 days, the counsel of the assessee has filed an application along with an affidavit which is reproduced as under: “1. That I was the partner of the M/s Rajesh Karyana Store having PAN AAHFR5945G 2. That I have filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 25.06.2025 against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax 3. That the present appeal was required to be filed on or before 28th February, 2025. However, there has been a delay of 117 days in filing the same due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 4. The impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) was communicated only through email, which inadvertently got filtered into the \"spam\" folder of the registered email account and, consequently, remained Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 530/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 unnoticed and also the same is being sent on the mail id of the son of the partner i.e [e-mail] who was residing outside India during the relevant period, and therefore the email remained unattended. 5. That the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide reason beyond my control. 6. That in the interest of substantial justice and natural justice, it is humbly prayed that the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits.” 4. Keeping in view, issues mentioned in the affidavit, the delay is hereby condoned. 5. The ld. D.R. did not have any objection in the condonation of delay. 6. At the very outset, the counsel of the assessee brought before the bench during proceedings before us that the assessment order passed by the A.O. is an ex-parte order and the ld. CIT(A) has also passed his appellate order as an ex-parte order. The counsel, therefore, argued that the case has not been discussed or assessed on merit before the lower authorities. Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 530/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have considered the submissions of the ld. counsel regarding this order being an ex-parte order both before the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings as well as before the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. 9. Thus, we find that the issues in this case have not been discussed on merit after due consideration of assessee’s submission. 10. Therefore, keeping in view, the element of natural justice with the assessee, we are inclined to remand this appeal back to the file of the A.O. for passing an order de-novo after giving adequate opportunities to the assessee of being heard as well as to allow him to file written submissions if any. The assessee will have all the legal issues before him. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the department for completion of proceedings before authorities below. Printed from counselvise.com 5 I.T.A. No. 530/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court as on 19.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Udayan Dasgupta) (Krinwant Sahay) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "