VENKATA PADMAVATHI DALAPATHIRAO REPRESENTED BY DALAPATHI VENKATA KRISHNA NAGENDER RAO-LEGAL HEIR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1791/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, placed at page 22 of the paper book, did not bear any signature of the AO, either manual or digital. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that an unsigned notice under section 148 is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction upon the AO to proceed with reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment order dated 27.12.2018, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, was quashed as being without jurisdiction. Since the assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, the remaining grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and did not require separate adjudication. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Venkata Padmavathi Dalapathrao, is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dated 28.08.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) had completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 27.12.2018, making an addition of Rs. 63,29,191/- on account of long-term capital gains. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, raising additional grounds concerning the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147, through the notice issued under section 148 dated 06th February, 2018, based on the assumption of wrong facts that the Income Tax Return was not filed, is bad in law and void ab-initio, and the consequent re-assessment proceedings and order are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed? (Mixed law and fact, turns on Section 147/148) 2. Whether the initiation of proceedings, led by the issuance of notice under section 148 dated 03rd December 2018, which is unsigned, is improper and all further proceedings are bad in law? (Mixed law and fact, turns on Section 148) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 was unsigned, making it invalid and without jurisdiction, relying on Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO. The assessee also argued that the initiation of proceedings based on wrong facts was bad in law. Revenue's contentions: The Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 28/09/2026

Per Madhusudhan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Venkata Padmavathi Dalapathirao (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Addl./JCIT(A), Panaji (“Ld. First Appellate Authority ”) dated 28.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No 1791 of 2025 Venkata Padmavathi Dalapathrao

3.

The assessee has also raised th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →