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 सं./ITA No.830/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Firoj Alam H. No.0, Hathkhoj, Indira Nagar, Bhilai-490 026 PAN: BGMPA0920J .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer-2(1).

Bhilai (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing :19.02.2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement :19.02.2026 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 29.10.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. In this case, the assessee has raised both grounds on merits as well as legal grounds through additional grounds of appeal. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel assailed ground No.2 of additional grounds of appeal and submitted that if said additional ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits shall become academic only. In this regard, the Additional Ground of Appeal No.2 is extracted as follows:

“2. The assessment order passed by the A.O is illegal inasmuch as approval granted u/s. 151 is not in accordance with provisions of law. The assessment order is illegal and liable to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal assessment order.”

3. That assailing the said legal ground, the Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the approval u/s. 151 of the Act by the competent authority remains unsigned and thereby, violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act.

4. I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Leeladhar Chandrakar & Neelam Chandrakar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.), ITA Nos. 442, 443 & 444/RPR/2025, dated 07.08.2025 and therein, the Tribunal had referred to and affirmed the view taken in another decision of ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Smt. Shobha Duvey Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur, ITA No.395/RPR/2025, dated 04.08.2025 providing relief to the assessee. The relevant paras of the aforesaid order are extracted as follows:

“21. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Page 4 of the paper book submitted that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is left unsigned and though therein appears the name and designation of the Income Tax Authority, however, it is sans any signature. I have carefully perused the documents on record particularly the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and therein it is evident that though the name and designation of the Income Tax Authority is appearing but it is unsigned. Since such notice is without any signature of the issuing authority hence, violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act. For the sake of completeness, Page 4 of the paper book i.e. notice u/s. 148 of the Act is culled out as follows:

22. At this stage, I refer to decision of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of Smt. Shobha Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur, ITA No. 395/RPR/2025, dated 04.08.2025, wherein the similar issue has been dealt with in a detailed manner in favour of the assessee. For the sake of completeness, the observation of the Tribunal are culled out as follows:

“4. That as discernible from the aforesaid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, there is no signature of the competent authority issuing the said notice. The name and designation is mentioned as Amrit Kumar, Ward-3(1), Raipur but neither there is any signature nor there is any seal of the jurisdictional officer and both the places of signature as well as seal in the aforesaid notice are left blank.

5. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR could not place on record any evidence refuting these f