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.475/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu

151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.)

PAN: EOMPS2921J .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 23.09.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 02.09.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is time barred by 244 days. Elaborating the reasons leading to the said delay, the Ld. Counsel has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated 20.08.2025. For the sake of clarity, the relevant contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows:

It is also noted that in the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No.474/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14, similar delay of 244 days was condoned by the Bench considering the contents of the affidavit. Accordingly, the said delay of 244 days involved in filing the present penalty appeal is condoned after taking guidance from the following judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025.

3. Coming to the merits of the case, parties herein submitted that in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.474/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14, relief has been provided to the assessee vide order dated 22.09.2025, hence, as on date there is no tax liability on the assessee regarding quantum.

4. I have heard the submissions of the parties herein and perused the material available on record. I find that in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.474/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 relief was provided to the assessee by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2025 by quashing the reassessment observing as follows:

“5. The third legal ground that has been raised by the assessee is that the approval u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) which was received by the assessee online was not signed, therefore, it is in violation of Section 282A(1) of the Act. For the sake of completeness, the approval u/s. 151 of the Act is culled out as follows:

In the same parameter on this legal contention raised by the assessee in the case of Smt. Shobha Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.), ITA No.395/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2016-17, this Bench held that if the mandate of Section 282A(1) of the Act is not complied with by the department, then in such case of violation, the entire proceedings carried out subsequently by the department against the assessee is vitiated and is held as arbitrary, bad in law. In other words, any notice/communication that has been issued by the department to the assessee shall have to be signed as mandated by Section 282A(1) of the Act. If such signature is missing or is left unsigned, in such case, all subsequent proceedings that is carried out by the department on basis of such communication/notice shall be void ab initio and non-est as per law since there c