BANKURA POLICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,BANKURA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), BANKURA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.951 & 952/KOL/2026 Assessment Years:(2018-19 & 2019-20) Bankura Police Employees Co-op. ITO, Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ward – 3(1), Bankura Police Line, PO & Dist. – Bankura Bankura – 722101, West Bengal [PAN: AADAB1013A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA & Shri D. K. Sen, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sallong Yaden, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2026 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(hereinafter referred to as the “ld.CIT(A)”], dated 13.02.2026 for the Assessment Years(AY) 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively.

ITA No.951/Kol/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19):

“4. For that Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as notice u/s

ITA Nos.951&952/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Bankura Police Employees Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO 148A(b) is bad in law for providing less than 7 (seven) days to comply with the notice which vitiated the entire proceedings with illegality.” 3. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has not filed return of income during the year and Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) on the basis of information available from insight portal, noted that assessee has sizeable amount of cash transactions in the bank account at IDBI BDCC banks, Bankura branch. Accordingly, notices u/s 148A(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’), dated 21.03.2022 was issued to the assessee, calling upon in para 3 to submit the supporting documents mentioned in the said notice on or before 23.02.2023. The ld. AR submitted that the AO granted only two days of time to file reply to the show cause notice, which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that accordingly, the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act is invalid and consequently all the proceedings emanating therefrom are also bad in law. The ld. AR relied the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Ekta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, in ITA No.2651/Kol/2025 for A.Y. 2019-20, dated 05.03.2026. The ld. AR also relied upon a series of judgement of various High Courts on this issue and accordingly prayed that the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and the consequent notice u/s 148 and the assessment framed may kindly be quashed.

ITA Nos.951&952/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Bankura Police Employees Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO documents on 22.03.2023. For the sake of ready reference, the said notice extracted below:

ITA Nos.951&952/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Bankura Police Employees Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO invalid and bad in law. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Ekta Merchant Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and held as under:

“6.After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material available on record, we find that in the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act, time period to respond to the said notice was less than 7 days as stated hereinabove. Therefore, the said notice is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law as the period granted for filing the reply is less than 7 days period as contemplated in the said provision vitiating the said notice as well as consequent assessment framed. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the following case laws: 1. judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Panjos Builders P Ltd. vide WP No. 23572 of 2023, dated 08.01.2024. 2. Judgment of Bangalore ITAT in the case of E Ashwath Narayan vide ITA No. 1920/Bang/2024, dated 17.04.2025 3. Judgment of Kolkata ITAT in the case of Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No. 2026/Kol/2025, dated 18.12.2025 4. Judgment of Kolkata ITAT in the case of Piyush Kumar Sarda vide ITA No. 542/Kol/2025, dated 23.07.2025” 7. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench cited supra, quash the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act and consequent notice u/s 148 and assessment framed u/s 143/147 of the Act. The ground no. 4 is allowed.

ITA No.952/Kol/2026 (A.Y. 2019-20):

“5. For that Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in confirming the order of assessment when the appellant is

ITA Nos.951&952/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Bankura Police Employees Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO a mutual society where contributors and beneficiaries are same as such income of the appellant society is not exigible to tax.” 10. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee Bankura Police Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, did not file any return of income for the impugned assessment year. As per information available on record, no assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) on the basis of Directorate of Income-tax (Systems), CBDT, re-opened the case of the assessee by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23.03.2023 after following the procedure laid down in section 148A of the Act. Finally, when there is no compliance on the part of the assessee, the assessment framed by the AO u/s 147/144/144B of the Act, dated 19.03.2024, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

ITA Nos.951&952/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Bankura Police Employees Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO

2.3. It is apparent from the above that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act has not been signed by the ld. AO either digitally or manually and therefore, the unsigned notice is bad in law. The case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 451 ITR 27 (Bombay)[09-01-2023], wherein it has held as under:- “21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 2-4-2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction toproceed to reassess the income of the petitioner. Consequently, the notice dated 2-4-2022 u/s.148 of the Act issued to the petitioner being invalid and sought to be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 with which we are concerned in this petition, any steps taken by the respondents in furtherance of notice dated 21-3-2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and order dated 2-4- 2022 issued under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act, would be without jurisdiction, and therefore, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14

ITA Nos.951&952/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Bankura Police Employees Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we quash and set aside the notice dated 2-4-2022 issued by the respondents u/s.148 of the Act, order dated 2-4-2022 under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and notice dated 21-3-2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act.” 2.4. Similarly, the co-ordinate Bench of Bangalore in case of M/s. Yeshoda Electricals Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1175/Bang/2016 and Ors. vide order dated 03.02.2021. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Panjos Builders (P.) Ltd. vs. Income- tax Officer [2024] 161 taxmann.com 573 (Karnataka)[08-01-2024], wherein it has held as under:- “8. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the Notice at Annexure - A dated 21-3-2022 is not signed either physically or digitally but the impugned notice also prescribes a period of six days, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Begur's case and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mukesh's case supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notice at Annexure - A and also consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., deserves to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.” 2.5. Similarly, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd. reported in [2004] 139 TAXMAN 132 (CAL.), wherein it has held as under:- “9. The service of a valid notice, as already noticed, is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. The existence of a valid notice is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact. The question, therefore, is not to be looked at from the perspective that the decision to issue notice was by an authority competent in that behalf under the Act and, therefore, submitting to his jurisdiction without objection, the inference of waiver arises. The question being one of jurisdiction, to be more specific the condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction what has to be seen is that the person that purported to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him had in fact exercised that jurisdiction and signed the said notice. The said test has not beensatisfied in the case on hand. Unlike the judgment of this court in Anand & Co.’s case (supra) relied upon by the Revenue the case on hand is not one where the authenticity of the show-cause notice is in question. In the case on hand as held by the fact-finding authority the

ITA Nos.951&952/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Bankura Police Employees Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO show-cause notice has not been signed by any person and the place intended for signature was kept blank. 10. We therefore, find no reason to differ with the view of the Tribunal.” 2.6. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the abovejudicial forums, we are inclined to quash the reopening ofassessment on the basis of unsigned notice issued u/s 148 of the Actto the assessee and also consequent assessment framed u/s 143/147of the Act. The ground no. 1 is allowed.” 12. The ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of ld. CIT(A).

ITA Nos.951&952/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Bankura Police Employees Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO 14. A perusal of the notice reveals that there is no signature of the notice manual or digital, therefore, in our opinion, the notice is invalid and all the consequential proceedings including assessment framed are invalid and bad in law.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 16/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 16/07/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. 2. 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata