SMT. DEEPTI SHRIVASTAV, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. ITO, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 787/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Smt. Deepti Shrivastav against the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary legal contention was the lack of a valid transfer order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the absence of a notice under section 148, which are essential for the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. The Tribunal examined the procedural lapses and referenced several judicial precedents to conclude that the assessment was invalid due to these procedural deficiencies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842068 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur, Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rahul Tyagi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Virendra Gir Goswami Vs. Income Tax Officer, DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Umanath Pandey v. State of UP, Biecco Lawrie Ltd v. State of West Bengal, Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKSHI GOPAL AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 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 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.787/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt.Deepti Shrivastav Ekta Nagar, Pachpedinaka, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) PAN: CICPS2834Q .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 12.09.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 17 days. That explaining the said delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assesse has submitted condonation petition a/w. affidavit dated 28.11.2025. The contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 3 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 4 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 3. I have carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and condonation petition and heard the submissions of the parties herein. In my considered view, there is no deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee, if any, for late filing of this appeal. Considering the ratio laid down in the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, I hereby condone the delay of 17 days involved in the present appeal and the matter is heard on merits. 4. The assessee has filed both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then other grounds shall become academic only. 5. In this case, the contention in law raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are that first of all, there is no valid order of transfer u/s. 127 of Printed from counselvise.com 5 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) transferring the case from ITO-4(4), Raipur to ITO-3(2), Raipur. Second limb of argument of the Ld. Counsel is that ITO-3(2), Raipur had completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 19.11.2018 without issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is “sine qua non” for framing assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued by ITO-4(4), Raipur, whereas, finally the assessment was completed by ITO- 3(2), Raipur. Meaning thereby, the ITO-3(2), Raipur before framing the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act had never issued any notice u/s.148 of the Act. 6. As regards the issue of non-availability of transfer order u/s.127 of the Act, the Revenue itself admits the same as per report of the A.O dated 24.02.2026 filed by the Ld. Sr. DR. The said report of the A.O is extracted as follows: “Kindly refer to your letter F.No.Addl. CIT/RPR/Report/2025-26, dated 17.02.2026 on the subject captioned above. In this regard, the pointwise replies are submitted as under:- 1.1. On perusal of case record, it has not been traced any order ups 127 of the I.T. Act 1961 except a letter of the then ITO-4(4), Raipur regarding transfer of time barring scrutiny cases (copy attached). Regarding jurisdiction over the transfer of case, it is submitted that vide notification dated 15.11.2014, territorial reallocation of wards a Raipur Printed from counselvise.com 6 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 was undertaken and consequent upon this restructuring, the jurisdiction over the area Pachpedi Naka, Raipur automatically transferred to the then ITO Ward-3(2), Raipur. Thereafter, the ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur on 14.08.2018, pursuant to the notice issued earlier. Continued the jurisdiction after reallocation and passed the order of assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 19.11.2018 in this case. Further, the assessee has failed to raise objection under section 124(3) o the I.T. Act within one month of service of notice or within one month from the date of issuance of notice or completion of assessment in this case. 2. 2. Further on perusal of case record, it is respectfully submitted that though the assessee had filed return of income under section 139(1), no return was filed it response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also did no communicate that the original return filed under section 139(1) may be treated as return filed in compliance with notice under section 148. In absence of such compliance, there was no return available on record in the reassessment proceedings. Since issuance of notice under section 143(2) presupposes furnishing of a return in response to statutory notice, the same was not mandatory in the present case. Accordingly, the assessment has been validly completed under section 143(3 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 7. In such scenario, I find that similar issue had been adjudicated by the ITAT, Raipur, “SMC” Bench in the case of Rahul Tyagi Vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No.113/RPR/2024, dated 19.03.2025. For the sake of completeness, the relevant paras in the case of Rahul Tyagi Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) are extracted as follows: “2. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal ground as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits becomes academic. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that first notice u/s. Printed from counselvise.com 7 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 143(2) of the Act for A.Y.2016-17 for initiating limited scrutiny had been issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, dated 18.09.2017. Thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act for the same A.Y. dated 09.06.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur. That further, the Ld. Counsel has annexed the return of income and acknowledgement given by the department for the assessment year under consideration where the designation of the A.O (Ward-Circle) is appearing as Ward-3(1), Raipur. In this background, the Ld. Counsel submitted that firstly, if the original jurisdiction of the assessee is with ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur who had initiated the proceedings for limited scrutiny and later on, transferred to the ITO, Ward-3(1), then as per the mandatory requirement of the Act, order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act is required. However, no such order has been placed by the department and nothing is there on record that such order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act was acquired; secondly, if it is accepted that the actual jurisdiction of the officer regarding the assessee was the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur which is likely so since the e-filed return is admittedly taken by the designation of the A.O as per the address of the assessee to be ITO, Ward-3(1) appearing in the acknowledgment of the ITR filed on 22.02.2017 in the said assessment year, Page 8- 9 of APB. Now if that be so, then the initiation of the proceedings of limited scrutiny i.e. with regard to the first notice u/s.143(2) of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur suffers from valid jurisdiction, resultantly then subsequent assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur becomes invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently submitted that as per Section 124(3)(a) of the Act, if the assessee had any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, then the same could have been raised within one month from the date on which he was served with the notice u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. However, in the present case, the assessee had failed to do so. The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2023) 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that where the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, then Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction Printed from counselvise.com 8 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142(1). 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties, considered the material available on record and facts and circumstances involved in the present case. In so far the legal issue is concerned, it is apparent from record as annexed in the paper book that the first notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 has been issued by the ITO, Ward- 4(5), Raipur. Thereafter, second notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.06.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur. However, there is no iota of evidence whether there is any order of the Pr. CIT u/s. 127 of the Act for transferring of the jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer to another in the present case of the assessee. It is also noted from the e-filed return and the acknowledgement of the department that the designation of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is mentioned as ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur. If that is so, then also, the first notice i.e. notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur is without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law. 5. In so far the reliance placed by the Ld. Sr. DR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra), wherein, the conduct of the assessee was determined while accepting or non-accepting the jurisdiction by way of participation in the proceedings, the word “participating” in this present context should not be construed in any manner given the text of the said decision to prevent the right of the assessee for challenging any legal issue including the issue of jurisdiction before any appellate forum as had been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). Rightfully so mentioned in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when certain legal issues have been arisen and the assessee has failed to raise such legal issues before the sub-ordinate authorities, then he should not be prevented from raising the same before any other appellate authority. Therefore, taking guidance from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the contention regarding the issue of jurisdiction is held to be valid as had been raised by the assessee first time before the Tribunal. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) as has been relied on by the Ld. Sr. DR is clearly focused on the parameter of compliance. However, in the Printed from counselvise.com 9 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 present case as demonstrated in the record, it is not that of compliance and rather, it is ambiguity in issuance of notice and denying an opportunity to the assessee as to whether he should respond to the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur or ITO, Ward- 3(1), Raipur. There are plethora of judicial pronouncements wherein it had been held that the tax payer should be provided opportunity to prepare for his defence in timely and appropriate manner and if there is any ambiguity/confusion arising in the said hearing notice which prevents the assessee to defend himself, then such hearing notices and subsequent proceedings have to be struck down holding them to be arbitrary, bad in law. If this kind of ambiguity in issuance of notice by the appropriate authority is allowed then it would highly effect smooth running of business activities or for that matter generating income to the assessee tax payer. If the assessee tax payer is not able to earn income, then there is no question of paying any taxes. Therefore, the assessee should be allowed to prepare his defence as regards the proper jurisdiction before whom he shall make necessary compliances. 6. Derived from the Latin word “notitia”, which means being known, notice is the starting of any hearing. Unless a person knows the issues of the case in which he is involved, he cannot defend himself. For a notice to be adequate it must contain- (a) Time, place and nature of hearing; (b) Legal authority under which hearing has to be held; and (c) The specific charges, grounds and proposed actions the accused has to meet. This is the very edifice of the principle of natural justice. There is mandatory requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard. This pre-requires issuance of a proper notice. The authority has to issue Show Cause to the party/assessee to explain and produce evidence before an adverse inference may be drawn against him. The notice should be specific and unambiguous so that proper compliance can be made by the assessee. The importance of a show cause notice has been reiterated by Supreme Court in the case of Umanath Pandey v. State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40-43 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated”. In the case of Biecco Lawrie Ltd v. State of West Bengal (2009) 10 SCC 32, the Supreme Court Printed from counselvise.com 10 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 observed that “One of the essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a proper notice, i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice should be clear and precise so as to meet and make an effective defence. Denial of notice and any ambiguity there denied the right of the assessee for fair and judicious proceedings. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to each case.” 7. Rebutting the facts of the present case, it is noted as per the documents on record that the first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 was issued by the ITO, Ward- 4(5), Raipur and thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 09.06.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur who had framed the assessment without any order of transfer as required u/s.127 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Similarly, if it is to be accepted that the actual jurisdiction is with the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur then first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 which had been issued for initiating the scrutiny proceedings by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur is definitely without a valid jurisdiction over the assessee. When the issuance of notice and framing of assessment order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid. Apart from that, it was observed that as there cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of assessment, therefore, any consequential order passed or action taken will be invalid and without jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are culled out as under: “xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 30. If a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be Printed from counselvise.com 11 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 exercised or performed by that authority itself. (Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth Vs. Chancellor, Kannur University). Further, when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, then that authority has to exercise its power following the prescribed manner (CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh). Any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid…………. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 32. A statutory authority may lack jurisdiction if it does not fulfil the preliminary conditions laid down under the statute, which are necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction. (Chhotobhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. V. Industrial Court, Maharashtra Nagpur Bench). There cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of assessment. (Superintendent of Taxes Vs. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust). An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Any consequential order passed or action taken will also be invalid and without jurisdiction. (Dwarka Prasad Agrawal V. B.D. Agrawal). Thus, the power of assessing officers to reassess is limited and based on the fulfilment of certain preconditions. (CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.)” 9. With these observations, the assessment framed by the ITO-3(1) Raipur vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.10.2018 in absence of an order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act having been passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT and without any issuance of notice by him u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee, is held to be without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law and thus, the same is quashed. 10. Needless to say, once the assessment has been quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction then all the other proceedings subsequent thereto becomes non-est in the eyes of law. As the legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee then the grounds on merits becomes academic. 11. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Printed from counselvise.com 12 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 8. Coming to the second issue i.e. issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is “sine-qua-non” for completion of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, I find that similar issue has been adjudicated by the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Jagdish Kumar Yadav Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.), ITA No.593/RPR/2025, dated 04.02.2026 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant paras of the said decision are extracted as follows: “3. The legal ground assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that in this case, notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has been issued by the ITO-2(1), Bhilai on 31.03.2017 but the assessment was completed by the ITO-2(2), Bhilai u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 15.12.2017 without any valid order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act. That further, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the assessment was completed by the ITO-2(2), Bhilai without issuance of any notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, in these set of facts, firstly, there is no mandatory valid order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act for transferring the case of the assessee from ITO-2(1), Bhilai to ITO-2(2), Bhilai and secondly, the ITO-2(2), Bhilai before completing the assessment has not issued any notice u/s.148 of the Act. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the sub-ordinate authorities a/w. judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Harish Kumar Chhabada Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, TAXC No.138 of 2023, dated 08.10.2025. Also, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted a report dated 18.12.2025 which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 13 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 5. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had filed written submissions submitting that the facts regarding the case of the assessee are substantially distinguishable from the facts of the case referred to by the Ld. Sr. DR. The relevant submission of the Ld. Counsel is extracted as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 14 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 6. In this regard, I refer to the order of the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Virendra Gir Goswami Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No.411/RPR/2025, dated 22.07.2025 wherein similar issue has been dealt with by the Tribunal. For the sake of completeness, the relevant observations of the Tribunal are extracted as follows: “8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is noted that notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued by the ITO- 1(3), Bhilai and thereafter, assessment was completed by the ITO-2(2), Bhilai without any order of transfer as mandated u/s.127 of the Act by the competent authority. Therefore, such framing of assessment by the ITO-2(2), Bhilai in Printed from counselvise.com 15 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 absence of valid order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act is held to be without inherent valid jurisdiction. For the sake of completeness, the relevant paras in the case of Rahul Tyagi Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) are extracted as follows: “2. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal ground as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits becomes academic. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for A.Y.2016-17 for initiating limited scrutiny had been issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, dated 18.09.2017. Thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act for the same A.Y. dated 09.06.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur. That further, the Ld. Counsel has annexed the return of income and acknowledgement given by the department for the assessment year under consideration where the designation of the A.O (Ward-Circle) is appearing as Ward-3(1), Raipur. In this background, the Ld. Counsel submitted that firstly, if the original jurisdiction of the assessee is with ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur who had initiated the proceedings for limited scrutiny and later on, transferred to the ITO, Ward-3(1), then as per the mandatory requirement of the Act, order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act is required. However, no such order has been placed by the department and nothing is there on record that such order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act was acquired; secondly, if it is accepted that the actual jurisdiction of the officer regarding the assessee was the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur which is likely so since the e-filed return is admittedly taken by the designation of the A.O as per the address of the assessee to be ITO, Ward-3(1) appearing in the acknowledgment of the ITR filed on 22.02.2017 in the said assessment year, Page 8- 9 of APB. Now if that be so, then the initiation of the proceedings of limited scrutiny i.e. with regard to the first notice u/s.143(2) of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur suffers from valid jurisdiction, resultantly then subsequent assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur becomes invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently submitted that as per Section 124(3)(a) of the Act, if the assessee had any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, then the same could have been raised within one month from the date on which he was served with the notice u/s. 142(1) and Printed from counselvise.com 16 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 143(2) of the Act. However, in the present case, the assessee had failed to do so. The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2023) 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that where the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, then Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142(1). 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties, considered the material available on record and facts and circumstances involved in the present case. In so far the legal issue is concerned, it is apparent from record as annexed in the paper book that the first notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 has been issued by the ITO, Ward- 4(5), Raipur. Thereafter, second notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.06.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur. However, there is no iota of evidence whether there is any order of the Pr. CIT u/s. 127 of the Act for transferring of the jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer to another in the present case of the assessee. It is also noted from the e-filed return and the acknowledgement of the department that the designation of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is mentioned as ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur. If that is so, then also, the first notice i.e. notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur is without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law. 5. In so far the reliance placed by the Ld. Sr. DR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra), wherein, the conduct of the assessee was determined while accepting or non-accepting the jurisdiction by way of participation in the proceedings, the word “participating” in this present context should not be construed in any manner given the text of the said decision to prevent the right of the assessee for challenging any legal issue including the issue of jurisdiction before any appellate forum as had been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). Rightfully so mentioned in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when certain legal issues have been arisen and the assessee has failed to raise such legal issues before the sub-ordinate Printed from counselvise.com 17 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 authorities, then he should not be prevented from raising the same before any other appellate authority. Therefore, taking guidance from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the contention regarding the issue of jurisdiction is held to be valid as had been raised by the assessee first time before the Tribunal. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) as has been relied on by the Ld. Sr. DR is clearly focused on the parameter of compliance. However, in the present case as demonstrated in the record, it is not that of compliance and rather, it is ambiguity in issuance of notice and denying an opportunity to the assessee as to whether he should respond to the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur or ITO, Ward- 3(1), Raipur. There are plethora of judicial pronouncements wherein it had been held that the tax payer should be provided opportunity to prepare for his defence in timely and appropriate manner and if there is any ambiguity/confusion arising in the said hearing notice which prevents the assessee to defend himself, then such hearing notices and subsequent proceedings have to be struck down holding them to be arbitrary, bad in law. If this kind of ambiguity in issuance of notice by the appropriate authority is allowed then it would highly effect smooth running of business activities or for that matter generating income to the assessee tax payer. If the assessee tax payer is not able to earn income, then there is no question of paying any taxes. Therefore, the assessee should be allowed to prepare his defence as regards the proper jurisdiction before whom he shall make necessary compliances. 6. Derived from the Latin word “notitia”, which means being known, notice is the starting of any hearing. Unless a person knows the issues of the case in which he is involved, he cannot defend himself. For a notice to be adequate it must contain- (a) Time, place and nature of hearing; (b) Legal authority under which hearing has to be held; and (c) The specific charges, grounds and proposed actions the accused has to meet. This is the very edifice of the principle of natural justice. There is mandatory requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard. This pre-requires issuance of a proper notice. The authority has to issue Show Cause to the party/assessee to explain and produce evidence before an adverse inference may be drawn against him. The notice should be specific and unambiguous so that proper compliance can be made by the assessee. The importance of a show cause notice has been reiterated by Supreme Court Printed from counselvise.com 18 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 in the case of Umanath Pandey v. State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40-43 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated”. In the case of Biecco Lawrie Ltd v. State of West Bengal (2009) 10 SCC 32, the Supreme Court observed that “One of the essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a proper notice, i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice should be clear and precise so as to meet and make an effective defence. Denial of notice and any ambiguity there denied the right of the assessee for fair and judicious proceedings. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to each case.” 7. Rebutting the facts of the present case, it is noted as per the documents on record that the first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 was issued by the ITO, Ward- 4(5), Raipur and thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 09.06.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur who had framed the assessment without any order of transfer as required u/s.127 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Similarly, if it is to be accepted that the actual jurisdiction is with the ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur then first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 which had been issued for initiating the scrutiny proceedings by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur is definitely without a valid jurisdiction over the assessee. When the issuance of notice and framing of assessment order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid. Apart from that, it was observed that as there cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root Printed from counselvise.com 19 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 of the jurisdiction of assessment, therefore, any consequential order passed or action taken will be invalid and without jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are culled out as under: “xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 30. If a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. (Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth Vs. Chancellor, Kannur University). Further, when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, then that authority has to exercise its power following the prescribed manner (CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh). Any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid…………. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 32. A statutory authority may lack jurisdiction if it does not fulfil the preliminary conditions laid down under the statute, which are necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction. (Chhotobhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. V. Industrial Court, Maharashtra Nagpur Bench). There cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of assessment. (Superintendent of Taxes Vs. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust). An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Any consequential order passed or action taken will also be invalid and without jurisdiction. (Dwarka Prasad Agrawal V. B.D. Agrawal). Thus, the power of assessing officers to reassess is limited and based on the fulfilment of certain preconditions. (CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.)” 9. With these observations, the assessment framed by the ITO-3(1) Raipur vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.10.2018 in absence of an order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act having been passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT and without any issuance of notice by him u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee, is held to be without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law and thus, the same is quashed. 10. Needless to say, once the assessment has been quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction then all the other proceedings subsequent thereto becomes non-est in the eyes of law. As the legal issue has been answered in Printed from counselvise.com 20 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 favour of the assessee then the grounds on merits becomes academic. 11. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision on the same parity of reasoning, I hold that the assessment framed by ITO-2(2), Bhilai vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act, dated 24.12.2018 in absence of an order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act and without any issuance of notice by him u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee, is held to be without valid jurisdiction, bad in law hence quashed. 10. 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. 11. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed.” 7. As per the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on the same parity of reasoning and similar terms, I hold that assessment framed by the ITO-2(2), Bhilai vide order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 15.12.2017 in absence of an order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act and without any issuance of notice by him u/s. 148 of the Act to the assessee is held to be without valid jurisdiction, bad in law, hence quashed. 8. That once the assessment is quashed, therefore, all the other subsequent proceedings becomes non-est as per law. Since this legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee therefore the grounds on merits becomes academic only. 9. Before parting it is stated that in so far the reliance placed by the Ld. Sr. DR on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Harish Kumar Chhabbda Vs. Pr. CIT (supra), the same is distinguishable on facts of the present case. Firstly, in the case of Harish Kumar Chhabbda Vs. Pr. CIT(supra), the place of residence of the assessee and the place of business was within the jurisdiction of two separate A.Os and the assessee has given PAN database to the department in relation to the residence of the assessee. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Printed from counselvise.com 21 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 aforesaid case (supra) has held that since informations have been furnished by the assessee himself regarding PAN database, therefore, there is no need for any correction of jurisdiction. So far as the case of the present assessee is concerned, there is no such demarcation of PAN database regarding residence and business and the PAN database given to the department by the assessee pertains to ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai whereas, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai. Secondly, in the case of Harish Kumar Chhabbda Vs. Pr. CIT (supra), there was restructuring in the jurisdiction vide Notification dated 15.11.2014 and the ultimate jurisdiction vested with ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur and hence, in the case of the Harish Kumar Chhabbda Vs. Pr. CIT (supra), the jurisdictional A.O i.e. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur had passed the assessment order. However, in the case of the assessee, there is no restructuring. Thirdly, since there is no restructuring, the order u/s.127 of the Act is mandatory for transferring the case of the assessee from ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai to ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai. Since the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the Harish Kumar Chhabbda Vs. Pr. CIT (supra) is distinguishable on facts, therefore, the decision relied upon by the Ld. Sr. DR will not be of assistance to the Revenue. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. Considering the aforesaid factual position and the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is discernable that firstly, there is no order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act transferring the case of the assessee from ITO-4(4), Raipur to ITO-3(2), Raipur and secondly, assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed by the ITO-3(2), Raipur without issuance of any notice u/s.148 of the Act. In view thereof, I hold that ITO-3(2), Raipur who had completed the assessment in the case of the assessee u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act did not have valid inherent jurisdiction to Printed from counselvise.com 22 Smt. Deepti Shrivastav Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.787/RPR/2025 frame such assessment which, therefore, is arbitrary, void ab initio and bad in law, hence, quashed. 10. Since the assessment itself is quashed subsequent thereof all the other proceedings are non-est as per law. This legal issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, therefore, all other grounds becomes academic only. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per afore-stated terms. Order pronounced in open court on 02nd day of March, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 02nd March, 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 "