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.95/RPR/2026 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2016-17 G.T Reality Private Limited

23, G.T. Shopping Plaza, Avanti Bai Chowk, Kapa, Raipur (C.G.)-492 007 PAN: AADCG9139N .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 15.12.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. In this case, the assessee has raised 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 contention in law raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was left unsigned and blank and therefore, the said notice issued to the assessee did not constitute a valid notice since violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act. That in absence of a valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the A.O ceases to possess inherent valid jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. The issuance of a valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is ‘sine qua non’ for framing assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

4. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the findings of the Revenue authorities.

5. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein on this legal issue only even without going into the merits of the matter, I find that exactly identical question of law has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Smt. Shobha Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur, ITA No.395/RPR/2025, dated 04.08.2025, wherein it was held and observed as follows:

“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 follo