आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA (cid:302)ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सटèय एवं (cid:302)ी (cid:292)द(cid:547)प कुमार चौबे, Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय के सम¢

[Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member]

I.T.A. Nos. 2381 to 2383/Kol/2024 ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata Vs. Sujata Kayan (PAN: AKSPK 3598 D)

Appellant / (अपीलाथ(cid:568)) Respondent / (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)

Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 16.07.2025 क(cid:551) (cid:467)त(cid:876)थ Date of Pronouncement/ 24.07.2025 आदेश उ(cid:622)घोषणा क(cid:551) (cid:467)त(cid:876)थ For the assessee / Shri Sunil Surana, FCA (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती क(cid:551) ओर से

For the revenue / राजèव Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT Sr.

D.R क(cid:551) ओर से

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), -NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 29.08.2024 for AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2013-14 respectively. Issues are common in both the appeals hence taken up together for disposal by taking in ITA No. 2381/Kol/2024 for AY 2015-16 as a lead case.

2. It appears from the report of the registry that the appeals have been filed after a delay of 12 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeals. The Ld. A.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the submission made by the A.R. and the judicial pronouncement that a case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.

3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,51,420/-. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and assessment was completed at an assessed income of Rs. 32,33,850/- as it is observed in the assessment order that the addition was made on account of under head income from business and profession amounting to Rs. 25,80,219/-. Accordingly, the AO added the sum of Rs. 25,80,291/-.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.

CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on legal grounds. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the revenue has preferred an appeal before us.

5. The Ld. D.R challenging the very impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) thereby submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the notice u/s 148 of the Act as invalid ignoring the fact that notice u/s 148 was digitally signed by the AO on 31.03.2021 and it was issued within time. The Ld. D.R has further submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts on holding that notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was time barred as it has served by the assessee on e-mail on 01.04.2021 ignoring the judgment of Hon’ble High court of Mumbai wherein it has been held that once notice was digitally signed and settled or being dispatched whether through post or through e-mail, it was deemed to have been issued for purpose of Section 149 of the Act. The Ld. D.R submits that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

6. Contrary to that the Ld. A.R supports the impugned order thereby submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the case law and judicial pronouncement and thereby holding that notice issued was in fact not on 31.03.2021 rather it was issued on 01.04.2021 and it was time barred. He has cited decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and several judicial pronouncements of ITAT.

7. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the law and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter it has been held that notices issued was in fact on 01.04.2021 not on 31.03.2021 in the instant case assessment order was AY 2015-16 and as per the screen shot as mentioned in the order