Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO

451 ITR 27High Court2023#4412 most cited

What is Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO authority for?

A notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it lacks the Assessing Officer's signature, rendering subsequent assessment proceedings without jurisdiction.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO · Section 148 · unsigned notice · invalid notice · lack of jurisdiction · assessment proceedings · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

150 Taxmann.com 60

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 145A(b)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 282a(1)section 141section 148a(c)section 194lasection 282asection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)approval under section 151section 10(37)

Judgments citing Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO

Mahender Merugu, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Manchiriyal

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 846/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.846/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Mahender Merugu, The Income Tax Officer, Bhupalapally. Vs. Ward-1, Mancherial. Pin – 506 169. Pin – 504 208. Pan Biupm3308Q Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate For Revenue : Sri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.846/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Mahender Merugu, The Income Tax Officer, BHUPALAPALLY. vs. Ward-1, MANCHERIAL. PIN – 506 169. PIN – 504 208. PAN BIUPM3308Q Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate For Revenue : Sri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the…

Gopal Purushottam Vegad, Amravati vs. ITO-Ward 5, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 376/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roygopal Purushottam Vegad, Ito, Ward – 5, Amravati Vinit Vihar, Mangaldham, Vs Dastur Nagar, Amravati Pan : Ajnpv 0584 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ratan Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282ASection 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Gopal Purushottam Vegad, ITO, Ward – 5, Amravati Vinit Vihar, Mangaldham, vs Dastur Nagar, Amravati PAN : AJNPV 0584 A Assessee Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ratan Sharma, CA Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 07.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 12/04/2024 passed under section 250 of the…

Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Shramjivi Ashra, Kutch vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17 to 2017-18) Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Vs. The ITO (Exemption), wd – 1, Shramjivi Ashra Rajkot - 360001 Gorevali Bhuj, Kutch – 370510 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATG8071B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10/03/2026 आदेश / ORDER Per, Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinh…

Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Shramjivi Ashra, Kutch vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17 to 2017-18) Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Vs. The ITO (Exemption), wd – 1, Shramjivi Ashra Rajkot - 360001 Gorevali Bhuj, Kutch – 370510 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATG8071B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10/03/2026 आदेश / ORDER Per, Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinh…

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tial order passed u/s 263 of the Act is untenable. (page 35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO iii) 448 ITR 1 (All) Vikas Gupta v. UOI III) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.5161/Del./2024 dated 23/09/2025 Avon Containners (P) Ltd. v. ACIT “7. Now we have to decide which approval out of the above-mentioned two is valid in the eyes o…

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tial order passed u/s 263 of the Act is untenable. (page 35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO iii) 448 ITR 1 (All) Vikas Gupta v. UOI III) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.5161/Del./2024 dated 23/09/2025 Avon Containners (P) Ltd. v. ACIT “7. Now we have to decide which approval out of the above-mentioned two is valid in the eyes o…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tial order passed u/s 263 of the Act is untenable. (page 35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO iii) 448 ITR 1 (All) Vikas Gupta v. UOI III) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.5161/Del./2024 dated 23/09/2025 Avon Containners (P) Ltd. v. ACIT “7. Now we have to decide which approval out of the above-mentioned two is valid in the eyes o…

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tial order passed u/s 263 of the Act is untenable. (page 35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO iii) 448 ITR 1 (All) Vikas Gupta v. UOI III) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.5161/Del./2024 dated 23/09/2025 Avon Containners (P) Ltd. v. ACIT “7. Now we have to decide which approval out of the above-mentioned two is valid in the eyes o…

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tial order passed u/s 263 of the Act is untenable. (page 35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO iii) 448 ITR 1 (All) Vikas Gupta v. UOI III) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.5161/Del./2024 dated 23/09/2025 Avon Containners (P) Ltd. v. ACIT “7. Now we have to decide which approval out of the above-mentioned two is valid in the eyes o…

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tial order passed u/s 263 of the Act is untenable. (page 35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO iii) 448 ITR 1 (All) Vikas Gupta v. UOI III) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.5161/Del./2024 dated 23/09/2025 Avon Containners (P) Ltd. v. ACIT “7. Now we have to decide which approval out of the above-mentioned two is valid in the eyes o…

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tial order passed u/s 263 of the Act is untenable. (page 35-36 of Paper Book): Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: I JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT i) ITA No. 91/2019 (P&H) dated 27.2.2020 Pr. CIT v. Prahalad Singh II OTHER HIGH COURTS i) 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO ii) 161 taxmann.com 573 (Kar) Panjos Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO iii) 448 ITR 1 (All) Vikas Gupta v. UOI III) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.5161/Del./2024 dated 23/09/2025 Avon Containners (P) Ltd. v. ACIT “7. Now we have to decide which approval out of the above-mentioned two is valid in the eyes o…

Surat Goods Transport Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 16(2), Mumbai

ITA 7556/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 154Section 68

…of India [171 Taxmann.com 846] 6 Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ambernath City Hospital (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [182 Taxmann.com 268] 7 Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO [150 Taxmann.com 60] 8 Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Banas Finance Ltd. v. ACIT [WP No. 2046 of 2023] dated 05.03.2024 9 Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware 6 Surat Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd. Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [162 Taxmann.com 225] 10 Order of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sandhu Builders…

M/S. Jagmag Mercantiles Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…en signed by the ld. AO either digitally or manually and therefore, the unsigned notice is bad in law. The case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 451 ITR 27 (Bombay)[09-01-2023], wherein it has held as under:- “21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 2-4-2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to ITA No. 708 & 709/KOL/2025 M/s Ja…

M/S. Jagmag Mercantiles Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 708/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…en signed by the ld. AO either digitally or manually and therefore, the unsigned notice is bad in law. The case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 451 ITR 27 (Bombay)[09-01-2023], wherein it has held as under:- “21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 2-4-2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to ITA No. 708 & 709/KOL/2025 M/s Ja…

Infinity International, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 517/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…21.09.2023, 21.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 25,09.2023, 14.03.2022, 26.03.2022 and 27.03.2022, respectively are hereby quashed.” 9. We are also guided by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, 451 ITR 27. The operative portion of the said judgement reads as under:- ITA Nos. 462 & 517/Ahd/2025 Infinity International Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 6– “… 18. Sky Light Hospitality (supra) cited by the respondents was also not a case where the notice issued to the assessee was unsigned. That was a case where the notice u/s.148 was issued w…

Infinity International, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…21.09.2023, 21.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 25,09.2023, 14.03.2022, 26.03.2022 and 27.03.2022, respectively are hereby quashed.” 9. We are also guided by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, 451 ITR 27. The operative portion of the said judgement reads as under:- ITA Nos. 462 & 517/Ahd/2025 Infinity International Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 6– “… 18. Sky Light Hospitality (supra) cited by the respondents was also not a case where the notice issued to the assessee was unsigned. That was a case where the notice u/s.148 was issued w…

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1260/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…submitted that the assessment proceedings initiated pursuant to unsigned notice u/s 148 of the Act shall be considered as invalid. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO reported in 451 ITR 27 Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, in the case of MahankaliJyothi Vs. ITO in ITA No. 22/Viz/2023, sought for allowing the Ground No. 2 of the Assessee. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the additions have been made in accordance with law by…

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1259/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…submitted that the assessment proceedings initiated pursuant to unsigned notice u/s 148 of the Act shall be considered as invalid. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO reported in 451 ITR 27 Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, in the case of MahankaliJyothi Vs. ITO in ITA No. 22/Viz/2023, sought for allowing the Ground No. 2 of the Assessee. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the additions have been made in accordance with law by…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Mahalaxmi Light House, Hapur

ITA 3514/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Income Tax 285, Avas Vikas Vihar, Room No. 201, First Floor, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Cgo Complex, Hapurchungi, Pan: Aatfm3627N Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

Section 148Section 148ASection 69

…their being any manual or digital signature. The Ld. Counsel relying on the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018 dated 12/02/2018 F. No. 225/157/2017-ITA II, and the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO (2023) 150 Taxmann.com 60 (Bom), sought for allowing the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that all the notices have been issued by strictly following the procedures laid down in law and the Assessee has not objected either before the A.O. or before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding defects in the noti…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2309/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs ITO in WP No 9835/2022 order dated 09.01.2023 (451 ITR 27) the Hon’ble Court held as follows: “19. Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in B.K. Gooyee and Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd. (supra) to the facts of the present case, the signature of the Assessing Officer admittedly not having been affixed on the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the notice itself would be invalid and consequ…

Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO (451 ITR 27) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax