RAM KISHAN AGRAWAL,DEOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SAMBALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 300/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2026AY 2014-158 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in the prescribed format and was void. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were also invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the assessment order was invalid because the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not in the prescribed format and was therefore void ab initio.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice issued under Section 143(2) not in the prescribed format is void ab initio and invalidates subsequent assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK”

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.05.2026Pronounced: 27.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK” BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.300/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ram Kishan Agrawal ITO, WARD-2(1), Sambalpur Vs College Road, Deogarh, Sambalpur, Odisha-768108. (PAN: ADZPA0851B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, GUWAHATI [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Sambalpur/10258/2019-20 dated 06.01.2026.

2.

Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

At the time of hearing, the assessee raised a legal ground that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the preconditions were to be strictly

ITA No.300/CTK/2026 followed by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur for framing the assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Act dated 18/12/2019 as in the present case, the notice u/s 143(2) of Act issued in contravention of the CBDT Instruction F No-225/157/2017/ΓΤΑ-11 Dated 23-06- 2017 and in view of failure to maintain the mandates, the notice is void ab initio and consequent proceedings are also not valid.

4.

The legal ground raised by the assessee is accepted in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688(SC) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC).

5.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice was issued u/s 143(2) of the Act on 23.10.2019, which reads as follows:

ITA No.300/CTK/2026

6.

It was further submitted that the said CBDT Instruction F No- 225/157/2017/ΓΤΑ-11 Dated 23-06- 2017 reads as under:

ITA No.300/CTK/2026

ITA No.300/CTK/2026

ITA No.300/CTK/2026

ITA No.300/CTK/2026

7.

In reply, the ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

ITA No.300/CTK/2026 8. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 23.10.2019 is not in the prescribed format as provided under the Act and the same is liable to be held to be void and we do so. All other subsequent proceedings thereto are also invalid. Our view is further supported by the decision of the Coordinate Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Apala Banerjee Vs. ITO in ITA No.772/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 dated 28.04.2026.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Cuttack, the 27th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member

Dated: 27.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →