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.787/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt.Deepti Shrivastav Ekta Nagar, Pachpedinaka, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.)

PAN: CICPS2834Q .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), 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 : 02.03.2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 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 12.09.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 17 days. That explaining the said delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assesse has submitted condonation petition a/w. affidavit dated 28.11.2025. The contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows:

3. I have carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and condonation petition and heard the submissions of the parties herein. In my considered view, there is no deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee, if any, for late filing of this appeal. Considering the ratio laid down in the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, I hereby condone the delay of 17 days involved in the present appeal and the matter is heard on merits.

4. 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 other grounds shall become academic only.

5. In this case, the contention in law raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are that first of all, there is no valid order of transfer u/s. 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) transferring the case from ITO-4(4), Raipur to ITO-3(2), Raipur. Second limb of argument of the Ld. Counsel is that ITO-3(2), Raipur had completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 19.11.2018 without issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is “sine qua non” for framing assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued by ITO-4(4), Raipur, whereas, finally the assessment was completed by ITO- 3(2), Raipur. Meaning thereby, the ITO-3(2), Raipur before framing the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act had never issued any notice u/s.148 of the Act.

6. As regards the issue of non-availability of transfer order u/s.127 of the Act, the Revenue itself admits the same as per report of the A.O dated 24.02.2026 filed by the Ld. Sr. DR. The said report of the A.O is extracted as follows:

“Kindly refer to your letter F.No.Addl. CIT/RPR/Report/2025-26, dated 17.02.2026 on the subject captioned above.

In this regard, the pointwise replies are submitted as under:- 1.1. On perusal of case record, it has not been traced any order ups 127 of the I.T. Act 1961 except a letter of the then ITO-4(4), Raipur regarding transfer of time bar