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.395/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Shobha Dubey House No.143, Anand Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.)

PAN: ACOPA8043K .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 04.08.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 03.04.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. In this case, 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 the grounds on merits shall become academic only.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee assailing the legal ground submitted that in the present case, though the assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), however no valid notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has been served on the assessee since such notice is without any signature of the issuing authority hence, violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act. The copy of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 18.09.2017 has been annexed at Page 1 to 4 of the paper book which is extracted and made part of this order:

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 facts on record. However, she submitted that since the notice has been sent through electronic form, therefore, there was no requirement for such signature of the issuing authority and even without such signature, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was valid. The Ld. Sr. DR has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharat Krishi Kendra Vs. Union of India, WPT No.27 of 2022, dated 15.03.2022. The Ld. Sr. DR refers to Para 14 of the said decision which reads as follows:

“14. Third submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that approval granted under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 does not bear digital signature of authority, referring to note appended to approval (Annexure P-5), is concerned, the note appended says "if digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be taken as date of document". Submission of learned counsel for petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, is not acceptable in view of provisions of Section 282 (a) of the Act of 1961, which provides that notice or other documents to be issued for the purpose of the Act of 1961 by any income-tax authority shall be deemed to be authenticated if name and designation is provided. In approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, name, designation and office is printed. Hence, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that approval is not digitally signed is also not sustainable, more so when it bears DIN & Document Number.”

6. That before responding to the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR, it would be pertinent to extract the provision of Section 282A of the Act which reads as follows:

“282A. (1) Where this Act req