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 स.ं /ITA No.411/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Virendra Gir Goswami

85, Hathkhoj, Utai, Durg-491 107 (C.G) PAN: ALJPG4888N .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (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 : 17.07.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.07.2023 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.

3. The legal issue that has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that in the present case, notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has been issued by the ITO-1(3), Bhilai, whereas, the assessment has been framed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the ITO-2(2), Bhilai and there was no order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act from the competent authority which is mandatory, therefore, in absence of any such order of transfer, the assessment order is void ab initito and liable to be quashed.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Raipur “SMC” in the case of Rahul Tyagi Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No.113/RPR/2024, dated 19.03.2025.

5. In this regard, the Bench had directed the Ld. Sr. DR to furnish a report from the A.O which has been placed on record. That in the said report it has been only highlighted placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2023) 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein it has been held that once the assessee had participated in the proceedings and if the assessee does not question jurisdiction of the A.O within 30 days of receipt of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, then the assessee could not question such jurisdiction subsequently. However, the said report is absolutely silent and there is no iota of evidence on record regarding any order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act in the case of the assessee. That even the Ld. Sr. DR could not place on record any evidence regarding order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act by the competent authority transferring the jurisdiction from ITO-1(3), Bhilai to ITO-2(2), Bhilai.

6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions by the parties herein and judicial pronouncements placed on record. At this juncture, it is most appropriate to refer to the decision of this Bench in the case of Rahul Tyagi Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra), where this Bench had dealt with both the issues as emanating from the arguments put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as argument of the Ld. Sr. DR regarding report of the A.O placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra). This Bench has observed that in so far the reliance placed by the Ld. Sr. DR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT (Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra), wherein, the conduct of the assessee was determined while accepting or non-accepting the jurisdiction by way of participation in the proceedings, th