##PAGE1##

आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपरु म(cid:581)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

(cid:302)ी पाथ (cid:91) सारथी चौधर(cid:547), Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.593/RPR/2025

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2010-11

Jagdish Kumar Yadav

Near Boudh Vihar

Near to S.V Public School,

Shankar Nagar, Durg-491 001 (C.G.)

PAN: AAKPY0660J

.......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant

बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer-1(1),

Bhilai (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA

Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026

घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026

##PAGE2##

2

Jagdish Kumar Yadav Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

ITA No.593/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 24.09.2025 for the assessment

year 2010-11 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing has assailed

both legal ground as well as grounds on merits. He further submitted that

if the said legal ground is answered in affirmative, then all other grounds

including grounds on merits shall become academic only.

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

##PAGE3##

3

Jagdish Kumar Yadav Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

ITA No.593/RPR/2025

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:

##PAGE4##

4

Jagdish Kumar Yadav Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

ITA No.593/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:

##PAGE5##

5

Jagdish Kumar Yadav Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

ITA No.593/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

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 le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document