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.677/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nanda Singh Behind Civil Court, Ward No.8, Surajpur-492 229 (C.G.)

PAN: DBMPS5756K .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2025 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 11.09.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 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. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has assailed following legal ground:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is founded upon an assessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act passed pursuant to invalid notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act being not signed as required u/s.282A(1) of the Act.”

3. The Ld. Sr. DR was provided an opportunity to obtain a report from the jurisdictional A.O on the legal ground raised by the assessee regarding notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) being unsigned by the competent authority which was issued and communicated to the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted a report dated 02.12.2025 which is extracted as follows for the sake of completeness:

4. That as clearly evident, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for A.Y.2011-12, dated 05.07.2018 is unsigned and even screen shot of the said notice that itself is also unsigned, therefore, there is violation of Section 282A(1) of the Act. However, the A.O writes that such defect is rectifiable u/s. 292B of the Act. That further, the Ld. Sr. DR had placed on record written submission and relied 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.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and legal spectrum involved in the present matter and after careful consideration of the submissions of the parties herein, I find that the issue is squarely covered and dealt with by this Bench in the case of Smt. Shobha Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur, ITA No.395/RPR/2025, dated 04.08.2025. The relevant paras are extracted as follows:

“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 Kris