INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 44(6), DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. ARJUN ARORA, MOTI NAGAR

Date of hearing 03.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.12.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s/respondent’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex- parte. 2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

1. 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the facts that a valid notice u/s 143(2) was sent by on 25.09.2018 by ITO Ward 40 (3) Delhi which was digitally signed by AO at the page no 04 of the notice.

2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the all additions made by AO on the basis of validity of notice u/s 143(2).

3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the valid notice dated 25.09.2018 was sent by ITO Ward 40 (3) Delhi who has the jurisdiction over the PAN during that time.

4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the facts that assessee had not raised any objection regarding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) during the whole assessment proceedings 5. Ld. CIT(A) errer in facts and law while accpeting the submission of assessee regarding the validity of notice u/s 143(2), without calling a remand report from the AO.

6. The appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any OR all the above grounds of appeal

3. Suffice to say, the first and foremost issue herein is that of correctness of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s action quashing the impugned assessment for want of a valid section 143(2) notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer; reading as under: “5.2 I have perused the submission. I have seen the relevant pages of the paper-book uploaded by the appellant. As regards the claim that the assessment order has been issued without signature, is not correct because it is very much clear that on Page -10 of the impugned assessment order, the digital signature dated 28.12.2019 of the ITO, Ward-44(6) Delhi, is very much there. The assessment order is therefore, valid as far as signature aspect is concerned. 5.3 Now, coming to the claim that notice u/s 143(2) was not valid. I have seen the Notice u/s 143 (2) dated 24.09.2018 issued by the ITO, 2 | P a g e Ward-40(3) Delhi. This notice is not signed, either digitally or manually. Thus, there is violation of clause (n) of Para- 6 of CBDT notification No. 2/2016 dated 03.02.2016 (appended at pages 64-68 of the paper-book). Further, as pointed out and argued by the appellant, the said notice dated 24.09.2018 was the only notice issued u/s 143(2) within the time-limit prescribed under the Act, i.e., 30.09.2018; and such notice was issued by the ITO, Ward-40(3) Delhi while the assessment order was passed by the ITO, Ward-44(6) Delhi. Therefore, I agree with the appellant that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 24.09.2018 was not valid from signature aspect as well as jurisdiction aspect. The notice u/s 143(2) dated 18.10.2018 was issued by the ITO, Ward-41(1) Delhi. However, though the said notice was digitally signed, it was issued after 30.09.2018, the prescribed date (the return of income having been filed on 31.03.2018). Therefore, I accept that the impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction as no valid statutory u/s. 143 (2) was served upon the appellant within the prescribed time limit. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete all the additions/disallowance made in the impugned assessment order and compute the total income at par with the returned income. These grounds are allowed. 5.4 The assessment order having been held to be without jurisdiction, all the other grounds stand allowed.”

4. The Revenue could hardly rebut the above clinching findings under challenge that it was the ITO, Ward-44(6), Delhi who had framed his assessment whereas section 143(2) notice dated 30th September, 2018 had been issued by the ITO, Ward-40(3), New Delhi. We thus conclude in this clinching factual backdrop that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has rightly quashed the impugned assessment framed in the assessee’s case dated 28.12.2019 in very terms. Order accordingly.