YASIN ANSARI,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 112/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 June 2025Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's report and the order sheet entries indicated that no notice under section 148 of the Act was served on the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 and the penalty orders were deemed unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. The core issue revolves around the non-issuance and non-service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee claims invalidates the subsequent assessment and penalty orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order and subsequent penalty orders are valid when no notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F,Section 148,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr DR
Hearing: 12/06/202Pronounced: 12/06

O R D E R Per Bench These are appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of ld CIT(A), appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of ld CIT(A), appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of ld CIT(A), NFAC dated 16.12.2024 for the assessment year 2016 NFAC dated 16.12.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17.

1.

is against the No.112/Ran/2025 is against the No.112/Ran/2025 is against the order of ld CIT(A) in quantum order of ld CIT(A) in quantum order of ld CIT(A) in quantum appeal. is against the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming appeal. is against the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming appeal. ITA No.11/Ran/2025 is against the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the confirmation of penalty u/s.27 the confirmation of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act and ITA No.115/Ran/2025 is 1(1)(b) of the Act and ITA No.115/Ran/2025 is against the confirmation of penalty u/s.271F of the Act. against the confirmation of penalty u/s.271F of the Act.

P a g e 1 | 6 to 115/Ran/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

3. Shri M.K.Chowdhary, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR appeared for the assessee.

3.

At the outset, ld AR of the assessee submitted that no notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. It was the submission that in the absence of notice u/s.148 of the Act, consequential assessment order u/s.144/147 of the Act on 31.3.2022 is liable to be quashed.

4.

Ld Sr DR was directed to verify as to whether any notice u/s.148 of the Act has been served on the assessee. Ld Sr DR submitted the report of the AO, which reads as follows:

“

P a g e 2 | 6 to 115/Ran/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 3 | 6 to 115/Ran/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 4 | 6 to 115/Ran/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

5.

The report of the Assessing Officer clearly shows that notice u/s.148 of the Act has not been served on the assessee. As no notice u/s.148 of the Act has been served on the assessee, the impugned assessment order passed in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s.147r.w.s 144dated 31.3.2022 stands quashed. P a g e 5 | 6 to 115/Ran/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

6.

As the assessment order, which is the basis of levying penalty order itself quashed, the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act stands quashed.

7.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on12/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 12/06/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Yasin Ansari, Pundag Near ISM Chowk, Pundag, Jagernathpur, Ranchi 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Ranchi 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC 4. Pr.CIT,Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchisq2

P a g e 6 | 6

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →