Gursukh Energy India Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
ITAT Raipur Quashes Assessment as Void Ab Initio for Absence of Mandatory Transfer Order under Section 127
The ITAT Raipur quashed the assessment for AY 2012-13 after finding that no transfer order under section 127 existed for shifting jurisdiction from ITO-2(1) to ITO-3(1), even though both officers issued scrutiny notices. The AO’s own report dated 09.12.2025 confirmed that no order u/s 127 was ever passed, rendering the assessment without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Relying on Rahul Tyagi (ITAT Raipur) and the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal held that any order passed without fulfilling statutory jurisdictional conditions is a nullity. Once jurisdiction failed, all additions became academic, and the appeal was partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 08.08.2025 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the following grounds of appeal:
“Ground 1-Violation of Statutory Faceless Framework
That the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chandigarh erred in law in issuing an appeal order under section 250 by disclosing his name, designation, and location, in contravention of the faceless appellate mechanism established under section 246(5) and the e-Appeals Scheme, 2023 (CBDT Notification No. 33/2023 dated 29-05-2023).
Ground 2- Breach of Section 282A (Mode of Authentication)
That the order is bad in law as it violates section 282A(1) of the Income-tax Act, which requires electronic documents to be authenticated only as prescribed by the system, without manual identifiers. Mentioning the officer’s location and handwritten or typed designation constitutes an invalid mode of authentication that renders the order procedurally defective.
Ground 3-Non-compliance with CBDT’s Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction Schemes
That by disclosing his identity and jurisdiction (Chandigarh), the Addl./JCIT(A) has acted contrary to CBDT Notification No.76/2020 (Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020) and Notification No.33/2023, which centralize jurisdiction and allocate cases via automated systems, ensuring officer anonymity. Such disclosure violates the principle of faceless adjudication and anonymity intended by section 144B(1), read with section 246(5).
Ground 4 – Jurisdictional Error and Ultra Vires Action
That the officer, in issuing a non-faceless order with identity disclosure, acted without jurisdiction, since appeals handled under the e-Appeals Scheme are required to be processed only through the centralized system of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). An order passed in breach of statutory procedure is invalid ab initio.
Ground 5 – Violation of Article 14 and Natural Justice
That the impugned order undermines the faceless concept designed to uphold equality, impartiality, and elimination of human bias. By revealing identifying details, the decision loses the procedural neutrality envisaged under the faceless system, offending the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ground 6 –
The ITO Ward 3(1), Raipur passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income ax Act 1961 without issuing statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.
Ground 7 –
That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in proceeding with the assessment without there being a valid order of transfer under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No proper notice or opportunity of hearing, as mandated under section 127(1) and (2), was granted to the assessee before transferring the case from the original jurisdiction.
Ground 8 –
The Ld. A.0 has erred in law as well as in fact while making an addition of Rs.4,87,689/- as unexplained investments. The addition is not sustainable in law.
Ground 9 –
The Ld. A.O has erred in law as well as in fact while making an addition of Rs.30,00,000/- as unexplained investments. The addition is not sustainable in law.
Ground 10 –
The Ld. A.O has erred in law as well as in fact while making’ an addition of Rs.8180/- u/s.69C, the same is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
Ground 11 –
The Ld. A.O has erred in law as well as in fact while making an addition of Rs.40,055/- u/s. 69C, the same is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
Ground 12 –
The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any ground or grounds at the time of hearing.”
2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing ground of appeal No.6 in the grounds of appeal memo. Having heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Ground of appeal No.6 is dismissed as not pressed.
