Manmohan Das Kurre Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
The ITAT Raipur allowed the assessee’s appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru dated 13.02.2026 for AY 2011-12. The appeal was delayed by 18 days. The assessee explained that hearing notices and the CIT(A)’s order had been sent to an email address no longer in use, while Form 35 had indicated that he did not opt to receive notices through email. The assessee stated that no physical notice had been received and therefore he was unaware of the order. The Tribunal noted that the Senior Departmental Representative did not object to condonation and, considering the circumstances and cited judicial decisions, condoned the delay.
On merits, the assessee challenged the reassessment on jurisdictional grounds. Notice under Section 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 by ITO-1(4), Raipur, whereas the assessment under Sections 147 read with 143(3) was completed by ITO-1(2), Raipur. The assessee contended that there was no mandatory transfer order under Section 127 authorising transfer of jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer to the other.
The Revenue submitted that both officers were under the erstwhile jurisdiction of the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Raipur and therefore no Section 127 order was required. It relied on the fact that Notification No. 1/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014, issued under Section 120, placed both offices within Range-1, Raipur. The Revenue also stated that the case had been transferred from ITO-1(4) to ITO-1(2) on 14.08.2018. According to the assessment report, the case had been reopened after information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 30,30,000, and the assessment ultimately made an addition of Rs. 25,95,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69.
