आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर म(cid:581)।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.122/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G)

PAN: AJUPB5787C ........अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 21.07.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 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 30.09.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, it is noted that the present appeal involves a delay of 101 days which has been condoned by the Tribunal vide order sheet dated 10.06.2025 observing as follows:

“The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is time barred by 101 days. Elaborating the reasons leading to the said delay the Ld. Counsel filed affidavit a/w. condonation petition stating that as per Form 35 in the column “whether notices/communication may be sent on email?” the assessee preferred as “ No”. Therefore, whatever service has been done by the department electronically, it was not checked within time by the assessee which resulted in delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. On going through the entire petition, we are of the view that the said delay cannot be attributed to any malafide or intentional conduct of the assessee. Considering the fact that the delay has been occurred due to bonafide reasons, we condone the same relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 and Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. That further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee raising a legal ground submitted that the assessment was completed by the ITO-3(4), Raipur whereas the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has been issued by the ITO-1(1), Raipur without any order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR is directed to provide copy of the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to the assessee and also submit a report from the A.O whether there is any such transfer as alleged by the assessee, and if so, then whether there is any order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Act before the next date of hearing…….”

3. 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.

4. The legal issue that has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that in the present case, notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has been issued by the ITO-1(1), Raipur, whereas, the assessment has been framed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 23.11.2017 by the ITO-3(4), Raipur and there was no order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act from the competent authority which is mandatory, therefore, in absence of any such order of transfer, the assessment order is void ab initito and liable to be quashed.

5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Raipur “SMC” in the case of Rahul Tyagi Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No.113/RPR/2024, dated 19.03.2025.

6. In this regard, the Bench had directed the Ld. Sr. DR to furnish a report