Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A). A key issue raised was that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were bad in law as the assessee was in jail when they were issued. This issue was not argued before the lower authorities, including the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the issue of bad law notices due to incarceration was not argued before the CIT(A) or lower authorities and the facts were not emanating from their orders. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were bad in law as the assessee was in jail at the time of issuance, and if this issue is to be adjudicated now.
Sections Cited
148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 ORDER Per Bench : to 90/Pat/2013 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Patna [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in Appeal Nos.103 to110/A- I/C/2009-10 and to 98/Pat/2013 in Appeal Nos.112, 93 to 98/A-I/C/2009-10 and ITA Nos.99 to 106/Pat/2013 in appeal nos.115 to 122A-I/C/2009-10 and ITA Nos.174 to 176/Pat/2013 in appeal nos.141,142,144/A-1/2009-10 and ITA Nos.170 to 173/Pat/2013 in to 90, 91 to 98, 99 to 106, 174 to 176 & 170 to 173/Pat/2013 appeal nos.99 to 102/A-I/C/2009-10 dated 28.02.2013, 28.02.2013, 28.02.2013, 19.03.2013, 11.03.2013 respectively.
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted the ld. AR that the notices issued is bad in law in so far as the assessee was in jail when the notices were issued on the assessee. On a specific question, as to whether this issue was argued before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted by the ld. AR that this has not been argued before the ld. CIT(A).
It was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that this issue has not been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal should not go into the issues.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue is that during the incarceration of the assessee the notice was issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Act, has not been argued before the ld. CIT(A) or the lower authorities and the facts are not emanating from the orders of the authorities below, therefore, we are of the view that the issues need to be adjudicated first by the ld. CIT(A) after assimilating all the facts. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the issues in these appeals are to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In these circumstances, the orders of the ld. CIT(A) are set aside 3 to 90, 91 to 98, 99 to 106, 174 to 176 & 170 to 173/Pat/2013 and the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It may also be mentioned that this is the last opportunity as the assessee raised legal issue. These appeals relate to assessment year 1986-87 onwards and these appeals are pending in the Tribunal from 2013 and it is only now the assessee had decided to raise such legal issue and there is no affidavit filed by the assessee under Rule 11 of the I.T.A.T Rules. However, in the interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, all the captioned appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 4th September, 2025.