PRAVEEN KUMAR PATWA HUF,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-47(2), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1333/KOL/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016)
Praveen Kumar Patwa HUF
12, Haradutta Ray Chamaria Rd
Howrah, West Bengal-711101
Vs ITO Ward-47 (2), Kolkata

PAN No. :AAJHP 7673 K

(अपीलधर्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
: 01/09/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM :

The assessee has filed the instant appeal against the order dated
23.05.2025, passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre
(NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. The sole issue involved in the present appeal of the assessee is with regard to issuance of invalid notice u/s.148 of the Act without adhering to the new inserted provisions of Section 148 r.w.s.148A of the Act.
3. Ld. AR before us submitted that in this case the AO has framed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.59,77,593/- thereby making addition u/s.68 of the Act at Rs.36,09,222/- and addition made u/s.69C of the Act at Rs.1,80,461/-. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It has also been submitted by the ld.AR that both the authorities below have erred in not considering the fact that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is invalid and bad in law as the notice in this case has been issued on 01.04.2021
2
instead of 31.03.2021. In support of his submission, he filed the screenshot of income tax portal. The Ld. A.R has also cited a decision of Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court in the case of Marudhar Vintrade Private Limited, passed in WPA No.4382 of 2022, dated 12.04.2022, wherein the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court has held that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and proceedings initiated u/s.147 of the Act without complying the amended provisions of the Act is liable to be quashed. It has also been submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sunita Agarwal, passed in ITA No.148/PAT/2025, order dated 22.07.2025 has also quashed the assessment framed by the AO on the basis of invalid notice issued u/s.148
of the Act without complying the amended provisions of the Act. Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Md. Hakimuddin vs. ITO passed in ITA Nos. 1159 & 1160/Kol/2023 for AY
2014-15 and 2015-16 dated 24.06.2024, wherein the Tribunal has followed its earlier order passed in the case of M/s Osian Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. vs.
ITO in ITA no. 375/Kol/2022 dated 12.05.2023. Accordingly, ld.AR prayed that the assessment framed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act is not sustainable on the issuance of invalid notice and the same deserves to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the impugned order.
5. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the records and find that in the present case the assessee was served with a notice u/s 148 of the Act in which date has been depicted as 31.03.2021, however, screen shot of the income tax portal reveals that it was issued on 01.04.2021. In support of contention the said notice issued
3
beyond statutory time limit, the AR has filed screen shot of the ITBA portal which is available on record.
6. It is evident from the documents filed before us that the said notice u/s 148 of the Act was actually issued on 01.4.2021 and not on 31.03.2021. We have also gone through decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta
High Court in the case of Marudhar Vintrade Private Limited, supra and the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sunita
Agarwal, Md. Hakimuddin and in the case of M/s Osian Stock Broking Pvt.
Ltd., supra. The Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Marudhar
Vintrade Private Limited, has held that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and proceedings initiated u/s.147 of the Act without complying the amended provisions of the Act is liable to be quashed. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :-
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
4
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.

आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

(