Chhattisgarh v. Income Tax Officer Ward
Case Details
Page No.1 of 8 IN TAXC-134-2025 SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:36888-DB NAFR TAXC No. 134 of 2025 Katik Ram Kurrey S/o Late Shri Mahajan Kurrey Aged About 66 Years R/o Village House No. 233, Sakri, Satnamipara Uslapur, Tehsil- Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur- 495001, Chhattisgarh Versus Income Tax Officer Ward -2(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur 495001 Chhattisgarh. [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ... Respondent ... Appellant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant For Respondent : : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mr. Amit Choudhari, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Decision
Order on Board (29.07.2025) 1. This tax appeal, preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the “Act of 1961”) was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law formulated by order of this Court dated 01.07.2025:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Page No.2 of 8 IN TAXC-134-2025 ITAT was justified in upholding the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) confirming ex-parte assessment order without following the principles of natural justice and ignoring the provision of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which provide the procedure for service of notices and orders ?” 2. The aforesaid substantial question of law arises for determination on the following factual backdrop: 2.1 The appellant is an illiterate farmer and he was not required to file Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2013-14, as his income was much less than the taxable income. However, the assessing officer on 31.08.2017 initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the “Act of 1961”) on the ground that the appellant/assessee during the said year has made cash deposits of Rs.54,00,500/- in his savings bank account and had not filed his return of income and, therefore, considered his case for re-assessment. Consequently, the assessing officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 to the appellant on 31.08.2017, but the said notice was not served on the appellant and same returned back as un-served. Thereafter, again another notice was issued to the appellant on 12.10.2018 under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 for his appearance on 16.10.2018 at about 03:15 PM, which Page No.3 of 8 IN TAXC-134-2025 is said to have been served on the appellant in presence of one Anand (tenant of the appellant). Despite, the appellant failed to appear, which leads to passing of ex-parte assessment order under Section 144/147 of the Act of 1961 dated 15.11.2018. 2.2 Aggrieved by the said assessment order dated 15.11.2018, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short the “CIT(A)”), which also stood dismissed vide order dated 29.12.2023 on the ground of that though the appellant preferred appeal but failed to appear before the CIT(A). Against which, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the “ITAT”), Raipur, which was also dismissed by order dated 09.12.2024. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the said impugned orders, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assess before this Court, which have already been admitted for hearing on the substantial question of law, summarized in Para-01 of this order. 3. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that notice dated 31.08.2017 was never served upon the appellant and further notice dated 12.10.2018 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act of 1961 was also not served upon the appellant and, therefore, the appellant could not appear before the assessing officer. Even the notice issued by the CIT(A) was also not Page No.4 of 8 IN TAXC-134-2025 served upon the appellant and, due to which, the appellant/assessee was deprived of its reasonable opportunity of being heard, due to which, great prejudice has been caused to him, as his appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution. As such, the order passed by the assessing officer and affirmed by the CIT(A) and ITAT, deserves to be set aside and matter be remitted to the assessing officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal be allowed. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Ajay Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-revenue supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the appellant/assessee failed to make compliance and respond to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A) during the process of assessment and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) and also the leaned ITAT, Raipur have rightly rejected the appeal of the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show that initial notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 issued on 31.08.2017 was unserved on the appellant. However, second notice issued on 12.10.2018 under Section 142(1) of the Act, requiring the Page No.5 of 8 IN TAXC-134-2025 appellant to appear on 16.10.2018 at about 03:15 PM, was served on the appellant in presence of one Anand (tenant of the appellant) and, thereafter, the order of re-assessment was passed by the assessing officer on 15.11.2018. In this regard, Section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 deserves to be noticed herein, which reads as under:- “282. Service of notice generally. (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as "communication") may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person therein named,- (a) by post or by such courier services as may be approved by the Board; or (b) in such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purposes of service of summons; or (c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); or (d) by any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. *** *** *** ***” 7. In this case, notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 has been served on the appellant by the process server in the manner as provided under Section 282(1) of the Act of 1961, for the purpose of service of notice. However, Order V Rule 16 of CPC provides that where the serving officer delivers or tenders a copy of the summons to the defendant personally, or to an agent or other Page No.6 of 8 IN TAXC-134-2025 person on his behalf, he shall require the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered or tendered to an acknowledgment or service endorsed on the original summons. Further, Order V Rule 18 of CPC also provides that the serving officer shall, in all cases in which the summons has been served under rule 16, endorse or annex, or cause to be endorsed or annexed, on or to the original summons, a return stating the time when and the manner in which the summons was served, and the name and address of the person (if any) identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery or tender of the summons. 8. In the present case, notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 dated 12.10.2018, requiring the appellant to remain present on 16.10.2018 at about 03:15 PM before the assessing officer, was served on the appellant in presence of one Anand (tenant of the appellant), but same is not supported by the acknowledgment or endorsement as provided under Order V Rules 16 & 18 of CPC. Even otherwise, the appellant was summoned to appear on 16.10.2018 vide notice dated 12.10.2018 (i.e. only after 3-4 days), which in light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Canara Bank v. Debasis Das 1 , cannot be treated to be adequate time so as to enable the appellant to make his representation and, in absence of providing adequate time/reasonable opportunity, the 1 (2003) 4 SCC 557 [Para-15] Page No.7 of 8 IN TAXC-134-2025 order passed becomes wholly vitiated. 9. As such, since the first notice issued to the appellant under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was admittedly not served on the appellant and the second notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 was also not served on the appellant in accordance with the procedure provided under Order V Rules 16 & 18 of CPC and even the adequate time to appear before the assessing officer was also not provided to the appellant and directly the assessment order was passed on 15.11.2018, due to which, the appellant was deprived of his reasonable opportunity of being heard. Similarly, the CIT(A) and the ITAT has also failed to consider this aspect of the matter and affirmed the order of assessment dated 15.11.2018, which in our considered opinion, is liable to be aside. 10. Accordingly, the order passed order passed by assessing officer dated 15.11.2018, as affirmed by the CIT (A) and by the learned ITAT, Raipur, is hereby set aside/quashed. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer concerned for considering the matter afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee as well as to the respondent-revenue and passing fresh order of assessment in accordance with law expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the Assessing Officer concerned on 20.08.2025 for the said purpose. Hence, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee. Page No.8 of 8 IN TAXC-134-2025 11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge s@if