ASHISH CHHOKER,SAMALKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3282/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2017-185 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was invalid as it was neither digitally nor manually signed. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio and set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was neither manually nor digitally signed, rendering it invalid.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of a reassessment notice that was not signed manually or digitally. The tribunal also considered the validity of additions made on account of unexplained investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY

For Appellant: CA (trhough VC)
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15/05/2026Pronounced: 15/07/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3282/Del/2026 (A.Y 2017-18) Ashish Chhoker Vs. Income Tax Officer, VPO Chulkana, Samalkha, Ward-1, Aayakar Panipat, Haryana 132101, Bhawan, Sector 6 Old Housing Board Colony, Panipat, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AZOPC6804D

Assessee by : Sh. Subodh Jain, Asdv& Sh. Samyak Jain, CA (trhough VC) Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 15/05/2026 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of

Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

[hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC] under Section

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 08.05.2023

passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 147 read

with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1916 (‘Act’ for short)

for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 3282/Del/2026 Ashish Chhoker Vs. ITO 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

“1. That the impugned order passed u/s 250 of the act is contrary to law, facts on record and judicial precedents and therefore deserves to be quashed.

2.

That the ld. Cit(A) has erred in law in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the act, which is bad in law, void ab initio and without any independent application of mind.

3.

That the ld. Cit(A) has erred in law in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the act which is based on borrowed information, without any proper inquiry, independent application of mind and based on approval granted in a mechanical manner.

4.

That the ld. Cit(A) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of rs. 15,94,100/- made by the ld. Ao on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the act.

5.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3.

The assessee has challenged the reassessment proceeding

initiated under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of

noticeunder Section 148 of the Act as the same appearing at

Page No. 3 of the paper book dated 23.04.2021 neither

manually signed nor digitally. In that view of the mater, it is

the case made out by the Assessee that the impugned notice

under Section 148 of the Act dated 23.04.2021 has no sanction

in the eyes of law and, therefore, liable to be quashed. Page | 2

3 ITA No. 3282/Del/2026 Ashish Chhoker Vs. ITO Consequently, the reassessment proceeding culminating in the

order of addition subsequently confirmed by the First Appellate

Authority is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. In this

regard, he has relied upon the judgment passed by very many

Benches of the Tribunal and also different High Courts. The

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the

case of PrakashKrishnavtarBhardwalj reported in 451 ITR

27/331 CTR 64/150 taxmann.com 60/293 Taxman 132 (Bom.)

has been relied upon him wherein on the identical facts and

circumstances of the matter, the notice issued under Section

148A of the Act since found not been signed either digitally or

manually, the same was quashed. The Judgment relied upon

by the Ld. AR by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the

case of Karan Anand Vs. ITO has also been considered which

deals with the identical set of facts and particularly identical

notice which was reproduced therein at page 3 of the said

Judgment since neither manually signed nor digitally and,

therefore, stood quashed.

4.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand though relied upon the

order passed by the authorities below has not been able to be

controverted such submissions made by the Ld. AR neither any

4 ITA No. 3282/Del/2026 Ashish Chhoker Vs. ITO Judgment contrary to the ratio laid down in the Judgment

mentioned hereinabove has been able to be relied upon by the

Ld. DR.

5.

Under these facts and circumstances of the matter, having

regard to the provision of law and the ratio laid down by the

different judicial forums on the identical facts and

circumstances of the matter since the impugned notice under

Section 148 of the Act dated 23.04.2021 is found to have

neither digitally nor manually signed, the same has no force in

the eyes of law rather invalid and thus, quashed. Consequently

the reassessment proceeding in the absence of valid

assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. A.O. is void ab initio and

stands set aside.

6.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is thus, allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17/07/2026.

Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17/07/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS

5 ITA No. 3282/Del/2026 Ashish Chhoker Vs. ITO Copy forwarded to

1.

Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →