PRAKASH CHAND SHAH,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 44(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आदेश/O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2012-13/10169003 dated 14.11.2025. 2. Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCA represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA 263/Kol/2026

3.1 The ld. AR also placed before the copy of notices as mentioned in e-portal which reads as follows: 2

ITA 263/Kol/2026

ITA 263/Kol/2026

ITA 263/Kol/2026

3.2 The notice has been mentioned having been issued on 13.04.2021. It was the submission that as the notice has been issued on 13.04.2021 and the law has been amended in respect of section 148 in so far as it is incumbent to the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings by issuing notices u/s 148A and the Assessing Officer has not done so. It was the submission that the notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 issued on 13.04.2021 in the case of the assessee is liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Marudhar Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.

ITA 263/Kol/2026 in WPA No.4382 of 2022 dated 12.04.2022 wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as follows:

“Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the issuance of impugned notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that the same is barred by limitation and that the respondent-income tax authority concerned, before issuing the impugned notices under section 148 of the 1961 Act, has not observed the statutory formalities under section 148A of the 1961 Act as prescribed by the Finance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from 1st April 2021 before issuance of notices under section 148 of the 1961 Act on or after 1st April 2021. Learned advocate for the respondent was asked as to whether final assessment order has already been passed or not in this case to which he submits that final assessment order has already been passed. He further submits on the basis of record that the impugned notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act, though it bears date and signature of the authority showing that it was singed on March 31, 2021, but it was actually uploaded for communication on April 1, 2021 at 3 a.m. which has to be treated as date of issuance of the impugned notice. Considering these facts, I am of the considered view that this case clearly falls under the amended Act relating to proceedings under section 147 of the Act under which issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act is mandatory before issuing any notice under section 148 of the amended Act which has not been complied with in this case. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order of this court in the case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 196 (Calcutta) and also in the case of Monoj Jain v. Union of India reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 173 (Calcutta), the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are not sustainable in law and the same are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice and proceeding will not debar the respondent-authority concerned to issue any fresh notice in future in accordance with law. With the above observations, WPA No.4382 of 2022 stands disposed of.” 4. In reply, the Sr. DR submitted that notice has been issued u/s 148 on 31.03.2021 as has been mentioned in the date of issuance of

ITA 263/Kol/2026 notice u/s 148. He vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the signature of the Assessing Officer as mentioned in the notice u/s 148 clearly shows that the notice has been issued in April 2021. This is also supported by the records in regard to the e-proceedings which shows that the date of issuance is 13.04.2021. As it is noticed that the notice has been issued after 01.04.2021, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Marudhar Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. referred to supra, it is held that the notice u/s 148 stands quashed. Consequently, the consequent assessment order also stands quashed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/06/2026.

Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 25/06/2026 RS

ITA 263/Kol/2026 आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ववभागीय प्रतततनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

BY ORDER,

Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata