Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A), which arose from an assessment order. The primary issue was the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which was neither digitally nor manually signed.
Held
The Tribunal held that a notice or other document issued under the Income Tax Act must be signed physically or digitally by the concerned authority to have legal effect, as per Section 282A(1) of the Act. Since the notice in question was not signed, it lacked legal force.
Key Issues
Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid if it is not physically or digitally signed by the issuing authority, as required by Section 282A(1).
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 148, 282A(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, dated 10.07.2024 arising out of the Assessment Order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the DCIT, Circle 16(1) Delhi, under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12.
The short point involved in this particular case as to whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018 issued by the DCIT, Circle 16(1) Delhi bearing no signature of the said officer is sustainable in the eyes of law or not.
Heard the parties and perused the records, the notice is appearing at page 1 of the paper book filed before us neither it is digitally signed nor manually. On the identical facts and circumstances of the matter the Ld. AR relying upon the very many following judgments prayed for quashing of the notice under Section 148 of the Act itself and consequentially the proceeding impugned before us:
i. Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO (Writ Petition No. 9835/2022) ii. DCIT Vs. Taureg Properties & Securities Services Ltd. (ITA No.733/Del/2016) (2020) 80 ITR 386 (Delhi) iii. Vikas Gupta Vs. Union of India (2022) (142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad)
While dealing with this particular aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vikas Gupta (supra) observed as follows:
“25. Thus the expression "shall be signed" used in Section 282A(1) of the Act 1961 makes the signing of the notice or other document by that authority a mandatory requirement. It is not a ministerial act or an empty formality which can be dispensed with. "Signed" means to sign one's name; to signify assent or adhesion to by signing one's name; to attest by signing or when a person is unable to write his name then affixation of "mark" by such person. The document must be signed or mark must be affixed in such a way as to make it appear that the person signing it or affixing his mark is the author of it. Therefore, a notice or other document as referred in Section 282A (1) of the Act, 1961 will take legal effect only after it is signed by that Income Tax Authority, whether physically or digitally. The usage of the word "shall" make it a mandatory requirement.”
As it is held that notice or other documents as referred in Section 282A(1) of the Act will take legal effect only after it is signed by an Income Tax Authority whether physically or digitally, I don’t find any reason to deviate the stand taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the identical ratio laid down in the other two judgments and respectfully relying upon the same I find that as the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018 annexed at page 1 of the paper book neither digitally nor manually signed by the concerned authority the same has no legal force and therefore, liable to be quashed. The entire proceeding is thus, void-ab-initio and therefore, quashed.
The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2025