SMT. SHAMSHAD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 215/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Smt. Shamshad Vs. ITO Kalani & Co LLP, Ward 7(2) Chartered Accountants, 5th Jaipur Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ACQPS 0667 M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.07.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-01, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 03.12.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.215/JPR/2026 Smt. Shamshad 2. The assessee has raised legal ground challenging the validity of the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act in ground No.1 as under:- 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued u/s 148 and consequent order passed u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 is illegal & bad in law and be quashed. 3. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that, the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act, was without jurisdiction, since the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was never served on the assessee. He contended that, this fact was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein on additional ground raised during the course of hearing, the assessee had contended that the registered post through which the notice was issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act, was returned back not served and was lying intact in record file. He pointed out, that the Ld. CIT(A) was also made aware of the fact that the counsel of the assessee had inspected the file and found the envelope in which the notice of Section 148 was lying to be in record file. In his submissions made to Ld. CIT(A), the assessee was stated mentioning that when this fact was brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A), he wrote letter to the AO to verify the facts, but after repeated reminder on phone, and after the passing of long period, no communication was received in the office of Ld. CIT(A) Jaipur. He drew my attention to the submissions made in this regard before the Ld. CIT(A) reproduced at page 12 and 13 of the Ld. CIT(A)s order as under:- Submissions: Though the facts and submissions along with the required and relevant documents were presented before the worthy CIT (Appeals) III Jaipur during the course of hearing in the year 2020 which must be available on record file and again presented against notice u/s

P a g e | 3 ITA No.215/JPR/2026 Smt. Shamshad 250 of the IT Act 1961 on 19-03-2021. However, again submitting the details ground wise as under:

a. An additional ground of appeal was raised during the hearing of appeal on 20-01- 2020 as follows.

"On the facts and circumstances the notice under section 148 was not at all served upon the assesse. The Ld. ITO was not correct to hold the service of notice on 24-05-2017 by registered post to the assesse. The registered post was returned back unserved and lying intact in the record file." The counsel of assesse inspected the file about the genuineness of issuing and service of notice issued u/s 148, found that envelop in which the notice of 148 was lying in record file, It was neither issued nor served properly to the assesse. When the facts brought to the notice to the worthy CIT (Appeals) III Jaipur during the course of hearing of appeal. He immediately wrote a letter to the concerned ITO to verify the facts. But after repeated reminder on phone and passing long period no communication was received in the office of CIT (Appeals) III Jaipur. Meaning thereby the facts of issuing and serving the notice u/s 148 was not correct. It is, therefore, the assessment framed u/s 147/144 of I.T Act was bad in law and liable to be quashed.

On careful examination of the assessment records and the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that the notice u/s 148 was duly issued on 22.05.2017. The notice was dispatched through registered post on 24.05.2017 at the address

P a g e | 4 ITA No.215/JPR/2026 Smt. Shamshad available in the department's records. The postal receipt and copy of the notice are part of the assessment file. The appellant's claim that the notice was not served is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is a settled principle of law that once the notice is properly issued and dispatched through registered post at the correct address, the presumption of valid service arises. The appellant has failed to rebut this presumption with cogent evidence. Mere assertion that the envelope was lying in the file does not establish non-service, particularly when postal records confirm dispatch. Further, the conduct of the appellant also shows awareness of the proceedings. The appellant's authorized representative appeared before the Assessing Officer, filed replies, and contested the merits of the addition. This clearly indicates that the appellant was aware of the reassessment proceedings and participated in them. Therefore, the plea of non- service is an afterthought raised only at appellate stage to challenge the validity of assessment. 5. He pleaded that, the order of Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect, since the facts relating to the service of notice were very well in the assessment records, which were duly inspected by him and were verifiable by the Ld. CIT(A) also, but he completely ignored and did not verify the facts and lay the entire onus on the assessee to establish the fact of non- service of notice, which was an impossibility. 6. I have considered the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee as above. It is evident that, the assessees contention of non- service of notice u/s 148 of the Act was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A), stating that the onus was on the assessee to prove that the notice was not served. It is also a fact that the assessee had contended before the Ld. CIT(A), that he had inspected the records of assessment and found the notice to be lying therein returned as unserved, and the Ld. CIT(A) had written a letter to the AO to verify the facts, who had not responded at all communication of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Considering the fact, that the assessee brought to notice to Ld. CIT(A), that he had inspected the records and found the notice issued

P a g e | 5 ITA No.215/JPR/2026 Smt. Shamshad u/s 148 of the Act to have been returned back as unserved, the Ld. CIT(A) was duty bound to call for the records and verify the said facts. He could not have shifted the burden on the assessee to establish the fact of non-service of the notice. Even otherwise, the assessee had pointed out that despite the Ld. CIT(A) repeatedly seeking clarification from the AO of the facts pointed out by the assessee before him, the AO had not responded to the same. When the assessee had brought this fact also to the notice of Ld. CIT(A), he was supposed to address the same either denying the fact contended by the assessee or accepting the same. By not commenting on the fact stated by the assessee before him, the Ld. CIT(A) has implicitly affirmed the facts. 8. I therefore, do not find any merit in the ld. CIT(A) order rejecting assessee’s ground of no valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, noting that, the assessee had submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) that the notice was lying in the assessment record unserved after inspecting the assessment record and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to verify the said fact, despite the record being part of the record of the Revenue itself. I have no choice left but to agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the notice u/s 148 of the Act in the facts of the present case, was fairly demonstrated to have remained unserved to the assessee. 9. In view of the same, with the jurisdictional notice itself, having not been served on the assessee, the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act, I hold is without jurisdiction and invalid. The order passed as a consequence u/s 147 of the Act is quashed.

P a g e | 6 ITA No.215/JPR/2026 Smt. Shamshad 10. Since the assessment order has been quashed as above, the rest of the grounds raised by the assessee are not being dealt with by me. The other legal grounds kept open for the assessee to be taken up, if required, at a later stage in accordance with law. 11. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22.07.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 22.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur