IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year 2013-2014)

M/s Vibhuti Marketing Private Limited, 3rd Floor, Room No. 12, Saha Court, 8, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata - 700013 [PAN: AACCV8966B]……..…...……………....Appellant vs.

ITO, Ward-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6^th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069................................ Respondent Appearances by:

Assessee represented by : Abhishek Bansal, Adv.

Department represented by : Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 09.09.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2025

O R D E R

1. This appeal arises from order dated 31.01.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].

2. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel pressed Ground No. 4 which is extracted below.

“4. For that even otherwise, the reasons recorded are vague and therefore the reassessment proceeding initiated base upon such reasons is bad in law.”

3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 01.10.2023 declaring loss of Rs. 19,534/-. Thereafter, on the basis of information available with Assessing Officer, it was found that the assessee had received at Rs. 10,00,000/- from M/s Gajagamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 17.03.2020 which was complied by the assessee on 05.01.2021. Therefore, statutory notice along with questionnaire was duly served upon by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions along with copies of ledger account before the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs. 10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income of the assessee as unexplained credit. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of Assessing Officer.

4. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee which is available at page no. 9 of the paper book which is unsigned the copy of the is extracted as under:

“Whereas I have reasons to believe that your Income chargeable to Tax for the Assessment Year 2013-14 has escaped Assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

I, therefore, propose to assess/ re-assess the income/ loss for the said Assessment Year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the said Assessment Year.

This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the PCIT 4, KOLKATA.”

5. In our opinion, the notice has to be signed digitally or manually. Admittedly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was without any signature digitally or manually of the authority issuing the said notice therefore, the proceedings initiated on the basis of said notice is invalid and cannot be sustained and so is the assessment order passed. The case of the assessee are squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Manoj Jain Vs. ITO, ITA No. 50/Kol/2023, order dated 11.07.2024, wherein, coordinate Bench has been held as under:

“7.1. A perusal of the said notice reveals that the notice has not been signed either digitally or manually. Apparently notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was without any signature digitally or manually of the authority issuing the said notice. We have perused the dec