Loading judgment…

SANDHYA SINGH ,BHOPAL vs ITO (2)(3), BHOPAL | BharatTax

SANDHYA SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. ITO (2)(3), BHOPAL

ITA 585/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 April 2026AY 2014-1535 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The AO reopened the assessee's case under section 147 r.w.s 144 & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15. A notice under section 148 was dated 31.03.2021 but was dispatched via email on 01.04.2021. The AO did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 148A of the Act.

Held

The Tribunal held that since the notice under section 148 was dispatched/sent to the assessee on 01.04.2021, it should be considered as issued on that date. As the notice was issued after the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, the mandatory procedure under section 148A was required to be followed. Failure to do so renders the assessment proceedings invalid.

Key Issues

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2021, which was actually dispatched on 01.04.2021, without following the procedure under section 148A, are valid in light of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021?

Sections Cited

147, 148, 148A, 149, 115BBE, 144, 144B, 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, ARs

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 19.03.2026Pronounced: 17.04.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 27.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of AY 2014-15 declaring a

Page 1 of 35

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 total income of Rs. 10,95,540/- u/s 139 which was duly assessed.

Subsequently, on the basis of information in his possession about certain

financial transactions undertaken by assessee, the AO re-opened assessee’s

case u/s 147 through a notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 which culminated

into impugned assessment-order dated 27.03.2022 at a total income of Rs.

1,95,59,200/- inclusive of an addition of Rs. 1,84,63,660/- u/s 69A r.w.s.

115BBE made by AO to the returned income of assessee. Aggrieved, the

25.19. The counsel for the Department have also sought to argue that generation of a notice with document identification number on Income Tax Business Application screen conclusively indicates that the notice has been irrevocably issued. The submission of the respondent is not borne out from the applicable circular regarding document identification number issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes and is therefore a mere ipse dixit of the counsel. 25.20. As per Circular No. 19 of 2019 (F. No. 225/95/2019-ITA.II), dated August 14, 2019 ([2019] 416 ITR (St.) 140 ) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the document identification number was introduced to maintain a proper audit of trail of communications issued by the Income-tax authority. The said circular does not state that the generation of document identification number would automatically constitute issuance of the notice. Relevant extract from the aforementioned circular is reproduced as under (page 140 of 416 ITR (St.) : ".. . However, it has been brought to the notice of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board) that there have been some instances in which the notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence (hereinafter referred to as 'communication') were found to have been issued manually, without maintaining a proper audit trail of such communication. 2. In order to prevent such instances and to maintain proper audit trail of all communication, the Board in exercise of power under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has decided that no communication shall be issued by any Income-tax authority relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the assessee or any other person, on or after October 1, 2019 unless a computer-generated document identification number (DIN) has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of' such communication." (emphasis supplied) In fact, in several cases, we take judicial notice that even as on date the jurisdictional Assessing Officers issue notices which do not have document identification number and in those cases the Department contends that the absence of the document identification number does not make those notices invalid."

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 18. Clearly, the date of notice is vital for determining the rights of the parties and there can be no uncertainty regarding the date of issuance of notice. It is, thus necessary that the date of issue of notice be ascertained on completion of the precise steps for issuance of the notice. In terms of the decision of this Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (supra), as noted above, where the notice is sent electronically, the date of dispatch of the e-mail is to be considered as the date of issue of the notice. Thus, in this case the date of issue of notice would have to be taken as 01.04.2021. 19. As stated at the outset, if there is no dispute that the date of issuance of notice is considered as 01.04.2021, then the said notice was required to be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). 20. It is material to note that a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice and issuance of such notice is necessary for the AO to assume jurisdiction to assess/re-assess the income under Section 147 of the Act. If the notice under Section 148 is found to be invalid, it would vitiate the proceedings commenced pursuant thereto. Thus, merely because the parties had laboured under a misconception at the initial stage that the initial notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was valid, would not invalidate the subsequent steps taken by the Revenue in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as the decision of this Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (supra). 21. Viewed from another perspective, if an adverse re-assessment order was passed pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2021 (issued on 01.04.2021), the same would be vulnerable to a challenge by the Assessee on the ground that the proceedings were not in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). 22. In view of the above, we find it difficult to sustain the petitioner's challenge in the present petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

“10. First we take the additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee wherein assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment order based on the notice issued u/s 148 on 01.04.2021 without following the amended provisions of section 148A of the Act. 11. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 and digitally signed on the same date however, this notice was served upon the assessee through mail on 1st April, 2021. In this regard, our attention is invited to the paper book page 32 which is the screen shot of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as supplied by the AO alongwith the show cause notice dt. 24.03.2022. As per the screen shot, it is observed that mail containing notice u/s 148 was sent on 1st April, 2021 at 7.19.56 A.M. and served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021 at 07.20.02 AM. Thus, it is clear that the notice u/s 148 dt. 31.03.2021 was actually issued and served upon the assessee on 1st April, 2021. With effect from 01.04.2021, amended provisions of section 148A and 148 were inserted vide Finance Act, 2021 according to which first notice is to be given u/s 148A(a) and after providing the information u/s 148A(b), assessee could file objections u/s 148A(c) and thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) has to be passed disposing the objections raised by the assessee and notice u/s 148 could be issued. 12. The Ld. AR further submits that in terms of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all the notices issued u/s 148 during the period from 1st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021 be treated as notices issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act and, thereafter, the AO has to complete the proceedings u/s 148A by passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and, thereafter, the notice u/s 148 could be issued. As per ld. AR since in the instant case, notice u/s 148 was issued / served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021 therefore, the procedure as provided u/s 148A of the Act should be followed before the issue of notice u/s 148 which has not been done. Therefore, according to ld. AR, consequent reassessment proceedings based on such invalid notice deserves to be held as bad in law and liable to be quashed. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal and Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Del.) and in the case of Makemytrip India Private Limited vs. DCIT & Anors. reported in [2025] 4 TMI 46 (Delhi). 13. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR submits that as per the report of the AO, the notice u/s 148 was generated and digitally signed through ITBA Portal and issued on 31.03.2021 at 08.57 PM. However, it was delivered on 01.04.2021 at 07.20.02 AM. Ld. Sr .DR further submits that as per section 148 of the act and further the limitation prescribed u/s 149 of the Act specifically refers to the "issuance" of notice and not to its "service". Ld. Sr. DR thus submits that what is material for unless otherwise agreed, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when a digitally signed notice in the form of electronic record is entered in computer resources outside the control of the originator i.e. the assessing authority that shall the date and time of issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 149 of the Act, 1961. Ld. Sr. DR thus submitted that since the notice u/s 148 was digitally sent outside the control of the AO on 31.03.2021 at 08.57 PM therefore, it should be taken as the date of issuance of notice and requested that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is valid notice. He prayed accordingly. 14. Heard the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Section 148 of the Act was substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions of section 148 of the Act applicable till 31.03.2021 could be issued only upto 31.03.2021. This issue stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC). In the instant case the notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee on 01.04.2021 which fact is admitted by the AO in the report submitted by ld. Sr. DR before us which reads as under: XXX (not reproduced) 15. The copy of the screen shot as supplied by the AO along with the show cause notice dt. 24.03.2022 and available at page 32 of the paper book, is reproduced as under:

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), held that the notice issued u/s 148 on or after 01.04.2021 should be treated as the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and, thereafter, the information available with the AO should be supplied to the assessee and after receiving the reply from the assessee, the order u/s 148A(d) should be passed and then notice u/s 148 could be issued to the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal vs. Union of India reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) has held as under: "19. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID-19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income Tax Act; b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial be nefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re- assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re-assessment for previous assessment years; c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply "notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act." Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of actions following the procedure laid down under the new regime; e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income Tax Act, Including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 31.1 Category 'A',: The Notices falling under category 'A', which were digitally signed on or after 14 of Apr, 2021 are held is bear the date on which Notices were digitally signed and not 31st March 2021. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction that the said Notices are to be considered as show cause- notices under Section 148A (h) of the Act as per the directions of the apes Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.2 Category 'B',: The Notices falling under category 'B' which were sent through the registered e-mail ID of the respective JAOs. Though not digitally singed are held to be valid. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction to the JAOs to verify and determine the date and time of is dispatch as recorded in the ITBA portal in acceptance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date of issuance. If the date and time of dispatch recorded is on or after of 2021 the Notices are to be considered as show-cause-notices under Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.3. Category 'C': The petitions challenging Notices falling under category. C' which were digitally signed on 31st of March 2021 to the JAOs to verify and determine the date and time of dispatch as recorded in the ITIBA portal in accordance with the law laid down in the of issuance. If the date and time of dispatch recorded is on or before 1st of April, 2021, the Notices are in be considered as show cause notes under Section 1464 (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.4. Category 'D': The petitions challenging Notices falling under category D' which were only uploaded in the E-filing portal of the assesses without any re alert, are disposed of with the direction to the JAOs to determine the date and time when the assessees viewed the Notices in the E-f-ling portal, as recorded in the ITBA portal and conclude such date as the date of issuance in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment. If such date of issuance is determined to be on or after 1st of April 2021, the Notices will be construed as issued under Section 1484 (b) of the Act of 1961 as per the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.5 Category 'E': The petitions challenging Notices falling under category which manually dispatched. disposed of with the direction to the JAD determine in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment, the date and time when the Notices were delivered to the post office for dispatch and consider the date and time of dispatch recorded is on or after. 1st of April, 2021, the Notices are to be construed as show-cause-notices under Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment. 31.6. Notices sent to unrelated e-mail addresses. The petitions challenging Notices which were sent to unrelated e-mail addresses are

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 disposed of with the direction the JAOs to verify the date on which the Notice was first viewed by the assessee on the E-filing portal and consider the same as the date of issuance. If such date of Issuance is determined to be on or after 01st April, 2021, the Notices will be construed issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1981 as per judgment in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) 31.7. We may note that in the writ petitions, the petitioners have raised additional defenses to challenge the impugned Notices. Such additional defenses have not been considered by this Court and the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all such additional defenses as available in law 31.8. We are conscious that the time granted by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal to the Department has since expired on 3rd June, 2022 however, the proceedings in the present writ petitions were stayed on 24th March, 2022 until the pronouncement of this judgment. Therefore, we grant the JACs in the instance eight (8) weeks time from today to determine the date of issuance of the Notices as per the law laid down in this judgment. 31.9. The Notices which in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment has been verified by the JAOs to have been issued on or after 01st April 2021 and until 30th June, 2021 shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 as substituted by the Finance Art, 2021 and construed to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b) as per the judgment of the apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) and the JAOs shall thereafter follow the procedure set down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment which reads as follows: "26 view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WT. No. 624/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:- (1) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which the subject matter of wit petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b) The assessing officer that within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the show- cause notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 petitions (not served) itself on 01.04.2021 or on a later date. The question of service of these notices and the date of service of notices upon the petitioners is of no relevance or consequence in all these writ petitions, as the notices itself have been dispatched from the office of the I.T. Department on or before 01.04.2021 which itself is beyond the period of limitation. 17. It is relevant at this juncture to note that upon coming into force of the Finance Act, 2021, certain amendments were brought to the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein Section 148 stood substituted with Section 148A by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. In the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) which has also been followed by practically every High Court in the country, held that for any notice of re-assessment on or after 01.04.2021 it would be the new amended law which would be governing the field, as the un-amended provisions were valid only till 31.03.2021. 18. We leave that issue for the time being there itself. 19. It is necessary at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Parveen Amin Bhathara vs. Income-Tax Officer 7, wherein the learned Division Bench at paragraph No.12, after dealing with certain judicial precedents on the issue, has held as under, viz., "12. .........Thus, the expression 'to issue' in the context of issuance of notices, writs and process, has been attributed the meaning, to send out; to place in the hands of the proper officer for service. The expression "shall be issued" as used in section 149 would therefore have to be read in the aforesaid context. In the present case, the impugned notices have been signed on 31.03.2010, whereas the same were sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 07.04.2010. Considering the definition of the word issue, it is apparent that merely signing the notices on 31.03.2010, cannot be equated with issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 149 of the Act. The date of issue would be the date on which the same were handed over for service to the proper officer which in the facts of the present case would be the date on which the said notices were actually handed over to the post office for the purpose of booking for the purpose of effecting service on the petitioners. Till the point of time the envelopes are properly stamped with adequate value of postal stamps, it cannot be stated that the process of issue is complete. In the facts of the present case, the impugned notices having been sent for booking to the speed post centre only on 07.04.2010, the date of issue of the said notices https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis would be 07.04.2010 and not 31.03.2010, as contended on behalf of the revenue. In the circumstances, impugned the notices under Section 148 in relation to assessment year 2003-04, having been issued on 07.04.2010, which is clearly beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, are clearly barred by limitation and as such, cannot be sustained."

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid decisions that the issuance of notice under section 149 is complete only when the same is issued in the manner as prescribed under section 282 r/w rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules prescribing the mode of service of notice under the Act. The signing of notice would not amount to issuance of notice as contemplated under section 149 of the Act. In other words, the requirement of issuance of notice under section 149 is not mere signing of the notice under section 148, but is sent to the proper person within the end of the relevant assessment year." 20. Similar stand has also been taken by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others 8. The Division Bench, while dealing with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20, held as under, viz., "18. Since Section 149 of the Act 1961 requires notice to be issued by Income Tax Authority, therefore, in terms of sub Section (1) of Section 282 A it has to be signed by that authority and to be issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with procedure prescribed. 19. The communication in electronic form has been prescribed in Rule 127 A of the Rules 1962 which provides a procedure for issuance of every notice or other document and the e-mail in [2022] 444 I.T.R. 41 (All.) electronic form/electronic mail which has to be issued from the designated e-mail address of such income tax authority. 20. Thus, after digitally signing the notice the income tax authority has to issue it to the assessee either in paper form or through electronic mail. Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Act 2000 provides that dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator. The aforesaid sub Section (1) of Section 13 indicates the point of time of issuance of notice. Therefore, after a notice is digitally signed and when it is entered by the income tax authority in computer resource outside his control i.e. the control of the originator then that point of time would be the time of issuance of notice." 21. Further, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs. Income-Tax Officer and others held at paragraph Nos.4 to 7 as under, viz., "4. The aforesaid newly inserted section 148-A now specifically provides for issuance of a notice if the Assessing Officer takes a decision to initiate re- assessment and therefore, a procedure has been laid down under section 148-A which is required to be adhered to by the Assessing Officer after 1/04/2021 i.e. the date on which the Finance Act, 2021 came into force.

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 5. The counsel for the parties were heard and during the course of hearing, the counsel for respondent/revenue Shri Sanjay Lal produced a letter dated 24/02/2022 bearing no. 1002 issued by Income Tax Officer - 3 (1) of Bhopal which was addressed to the counsel for the revenue and in the said letter it was stated that (2022) 444 I.T.R. 329 (M.P.) though in the notice which was issued to the petitioner herein, the date was mentioned as 31/03/2021 but, the system of the office of the respondents revealed that the Email to the petitioner was in fact sent on 16/04/2021. Thus, the counsel for respondent does not dispute that the notice which is impugned in the petition contained in Annexure P/1 in fact was issued on 16/04/2021 though the date on the same was mentioned as 31/03/2021 but was issued later on 6/04/2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid letter so produced before us dated 24/02/2022 and in view of the admission by the counsel for respondents, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned notice is bad in the eye of law, contained in Annexure P/1 dated 31/03/2021 (received by the petitioner on 16/04/2021 through Email) inasmuch as after 1/04/2021, it is mandatory requirement that prior to re- assessment proceedings notice under section 148-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 should be issued to assesseee. Since now in view of the admission by the respondents the other reliefs as sought for by the petitioner in the relief clause have become redundant inasmuch as now there is no dispute about the date of issuance of the impugned notice. 7. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 31/03/2021 (served through Email to the petitioner on 16/04/2021) stands quashed. However, it is left open for the respondents to take recourse to the procedure laid down in newly enacted section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if it is required under the law." 22. Recently, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court also endorsing the view taken by the Allahabad High Court as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court (supra), in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal (supra), has elaborately dealt with the said issue and held as under, viz., "16.1. The expression "issued" has been judicially interpreted by the courts as framing of the order and taking necessary action to despatch the same. Therefore, mere generation of notice on the Income Tax Business Application portal does not satisfy the test of "issue" without proving that the same has been despatched within the time barring period. (Delhi Development Authority v. H. C. Khurana (1993) 3 SCC 196). 16.2. Even though the service of notice is not relevant, however, for determining if a notice has been validly issued, the notice should be sent forth and go beyond the control of the authority issuing the same, to conclude that it has been issued. (Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt or his successors to office [2011] 334 ITR 25 (Guj)).

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 16.3. The provisions of section 149 of the Act of 1961, does not contain the expression "Assessing Officer". Therefore, no distinction can be made between the "Assessing Officer" and "Income Tax Business Application portal" under section 149 of the Act of 1961. The time taken by the Income Tax Business Application software for triggering of e-mail is attributable to the Assessing Officer and since admittedly the impugned notices were despatched on April 1, 2021, or thereafter, the same are time barred. 16.4. The E-verification Scheme, 2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Notification bearing No. 137 of 2021, dated December 13, 2021 ([2022] 440 ITR (St.) 9 ) in paras 6, 9 and 11, states that affixation of digital signature certificate in e-proceedings is a mandatory requirement. In the absence of digital signature certificate, the impugned notices would be null and void. 16.5. The circular bearing No. 19 of 2019, dated August 14, 2019 ([2019] 416 ITR (St.) 140 ), issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes mentions that the allotment of a document identification number to the notice is a mandatory requirement prescribed by the aforesaid circular only to maintain the audit trail of the documents issued by the Department and to provide transparency in the process. The allotment of document identification number to the notice does not amount to issuance as sought to be contended by the Department in these proceedings. 16.6. Since the impugned notices have been issued in an electronic form, the provisions of section 2(1)(t), section 3, section 13, section 66A of the Act of 2000 would be relevant as the same govern electronic communication. In the present case, as per section 13 of the Act of 2000, the Income Tax Business Application system should be considered as the "originator". Therefore, the despatch of electronic record would occur only when the same enters a computer resource outside the control of the Income Tax Business Application and only after such despatch would the notice be deemed to have been issued. 16.7. The e-filing portal as viewed by the assessee clearly highlights the fact that there is a system in place for duly displaying the date on which the notice is "issued" by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. However, for the impugned notices under consideration, the date of issuance is conspicuously not mentioned on any of the assessee's accounts on the e-filing portal. Illustratively the screen shot for PAN AAFCA 9047H is extracted below: XXX (not reproduced) 16.8. A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1961 and Act of 2000, leads to the inescapable conclusion that for the notice to be validly "issued" it has to be digitally signed and should be out of

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 the control of the originator for satisfying the test of "shall be issued" under section 149 of the Act of 1961. 16.9. The mere generation of notice on the Income Tax Business Application screen and signing the same is not sufficient for satisfying the test of "issued" and it is only when the notice has been despatched in terms of section 13 of the Act of 2000, would the same be declared to be issued. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. G. S. Chatha Rice Mills (2021) 2 SCC 209, wherein the Supreme Court has held that a notification would be in effect from the time and date on which it was uploaded on the e-gazette and not the date mentioned in the notification." ... .... .... .. 17.1. The details of the date and time of despatch of the impugned notices by the Income Tax Business Application servers are available with the respondent. In the case of Santosh Krishna HUF v. Union of India [2022] 449 ITR 457 (All), bearing Writ Tax No. 211 of 2022 and Mohan Lal Santwani v. Union of India [2022] 449 ITR 476 (All) bearing Writ Tax No. 569 of 2022, the Department provided the Allahabad High Court with the details of : (1) generation of notice ; (2) digital signing by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and (3) triggering of e- mail to the assessee. Further, the Allahabad High Court in Mohan Lal Santwani (supra) has directed that the date and time of triggering e- mail should be reflected in the e-filing portal accessed by the assessee. Therefore, in the present cases, the aforesaid information, even though available is being withheld by the respondents. 17.2. In the writ petitions, wherein the e-mail was triggered by the Income Tax Business Application servers before March 31, 2021, the respondents have readily furnished the said information in their counter affidavits as is evidenced by the counter filed in W. P. (C) No. 3038 of 2022, titled as Sant Sandesh Media and Communication P. Ltd. v. ITO. However, in the petitions where the e-mail was triggered on April 1, 2021, or thereafter, the said information has been withheld and an untenable submission has been made by the respondents, that the notice is deemed to have been issued on mere generation of the notice on the Income Tax Business Application screen. .. .. .. .. ... . 18.1. As per section 148 of the Act of 1961, valid issuance of notice is a jurisdictional requirement not just a mere procedural requirement. There is a heavy onus on the Department to provide the date on which the impugned notices have been posted or the date and time on which the e- mail was sent from the e-mail ID of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. (CIT v. Chetan Gupta [2016] 382 ITR 613 (Delhi)).

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 18.2. All impugned notices sent by e-mail have been issued from the designated e-mail address of the jurisdictional Assessing Officers, therefore, to allege that the triggering of e-mail by the Income Tax Business Application is separate from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is factually incorrect. The process of triggering e-mail by the Income Tax Business Application software system is for and on behalf of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and therefore, attributable to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. ...... .... ... .. 9.1. The screenshot annexed as annexure P-5 in W. P. (C) No. 4567 of 2022 shows that each notice in addition to a document identification number, also contains a communication reference ID ("CRI"). The communication reference ID is generated by the Income Tax Business Application portal to record the date of the issuance of the notice. Although the communication reference ID for the impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act of 1961, is displayed on the e- filing portal, the date of issuance is conspicuously absent. XXX (not reproduced) 19.2. Per contra, another screenshot annexed as annexure P-3 in the same writ petition, shows that in the case of other notices issued subsequently in 2021, to the same assessee, the date of issuance is duly mentioned along with the communication reference ID on the e- filing portal. Relevant portion of the screen shot is extracted hereinbelow : 19.3. The date of issuance has been selectively withheld only with respect to the impugned notices, as providing the information would make it evident that the date of issuance even as per the Income Tax Business Application software system is April 1, 2021, or thereafter, as the software is also programmed to record the date of issuance as the date of despatch. ......... ........ . 20.2. While referring to correspondence in the digitized world, the word "issued" has been replaced with the word "communicated" in section 282A of the Act of 1961. Therefore, when a notice is in paper form, it has to leave the office of the concerned Authority for despatch to constitute a valid issuance. However, in digital form, the communication is instant and therefore, merely putting the notice into transmission cannot be deemed to be communication. To constitute a valid communication the notice has to be effectively sent out by the concerned authority to the assessee. ... .... ...

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 21.4. To demonstrate the aforesaid, annexure R-2 annexed with the Department's counter affidavit in W. P. (C) No. 856 of 2022 can be perused, which is the screenshot of the Income Tax Business Application screen of the assessee as visible to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer only. In this annexure, the Department itself has extracted the relevant portion of the screenshot, which has complete details of the time at which the e- mail was sent, time at which the e- mail was delivered, etc. evidencing that the date and time when the e- mail containing the impugned notice as an attachment was sent by the Income Tax Business Application servers, is duly available with the Department. The relevant extract of the screenshot is reproduced hereinbelow: 23.1. The impugned notice issued by the respondent was not served on the petitioner/assessee's registered e-mail ID and was sent to an unrelated e-mail ID. The petitioner learn about the impugned notice which was neither signed physically nor any digital signature certificate was appended, incidentally through its e-filing portal. Therefore, there has been no compliance of the provisions of section 149 of the Act of 1961, while issuing the impugned notice. ......... 23. Further, the Division Bench, while dealing with the notices and reasons held as under, viz., 25. Question No. (I) : Whether the jurisdictional Assessing Officer's act of generating notice in the Income Tax Business Application portal on March 31, 2021, without dispatching the notice meets the test of the expression "shall be issued" in section 149 of the Act of 1961, and saves the notices from being time barred ? .... .... ... 26.6. Further, section 11 of the Act of 2000 is also of relevance : "11. Attribution of electronic records.--An electronic record shall be attributed to the originator,-- (a) if it was sent by the originator himself ; (b) by a person who had the authority to act on behalf of the originator in respect of that electronic record ; or (c) by an information system programmed by or on behalf of the originator to operate automatically. . ." 26.7. In the present case, the "originator", as per section 2(za) of the Act of 2000, is indubitably the Department. The same is confirmed by the contents of the compliance affidavit. As stated in the

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 compliance affidavit, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is the Income- tax authority designated by the Department to generate and sign the section 148 notice on behalf of the Department. The Income Tax Business Application portal is an information system programmed by TCS for the Department to operate automatically. The Income Tax Business Application portal is the computer resource designated by the Department for (a) drafting the e-mail to which the notice is attached ; and (b) for despatching the said e-mail with notice to the assessee through e-mail ; as well as (c) for sharing the said notice on assessee's "My Account" on the e-filing portal. Hence, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and Income Tax Business Application perform two inseparable and complementing functions for the Department, which together constitute generation of notice + drafting of the e-mail by the Income Tax Business Application e-mail software and its despatch through dedicated Income Tax Business Application servers. Thus, whilst the Department is the attributed originator of the impugned notices within the meaning of section 11(c) of the Act of 2000, Income Tax Business Application portal is the "computer resource" under the control of the Department. 26.8. In the light of the aforesaid findings of this court, the submissions made by Zoheb Hossain, learned senior standing counsel for the Department, that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the Income Tax Business Application are distinct and that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is the originator and hence not liable for delay in despatch, are untenable in law and facts. 26.9. Now, in order to determine when does "despatch", i. e., the transmission of electronic record or the notices in the present case, from the Department occur, we may first note the precedence set by several High Courts in the context of Income Tax Business Application portal. Under section 13 of the Act of 2000, various High Courts have concluded that the despatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator, i. e., when the Income Tax Business Application's e-mail system is triggered and the e-mail leaves the Income Tax Business Application servers. (Daujee Abhushan Bhandar (supra), Yuvraj (supra), Advance Infradevelopers (P) Ltd. (supra)). ..... ... .... . 26.13. Typically, an e-mail service based on SMTP Model utilizes a chain of servers to transmit e-mail from the sender to the recipient. Once an e- mail is drafted and the sender presses the "send" button, the e- mail service, i. e., the user agent ("UA") of the sender transmits it to the message transfer agents ("MTAs"), i. e., servers of the sender's e-mail service. Through a sequence of such message transfer agents, i. e., servers, the e- mail reaches the destination message transfer agents, i. e., server of the recipient's e-mail service. In case the recipient is using an intermediary server, it reaches the intermediary message transfer agents, i. e., server of the intermediary. It thereafter, finally reaches the recipient. In the case on hand, the Department's e-mail service is the Income Tax Business Application e-mail software system and the

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 assessee's e-mail service is G-mail, Outlook, etc. The Income Tax Business Application e-mail software uses dedicated servers for transmitting e-mails and therefore the e-mail is despatched when the same leaves the Income Tax Business Application servers for the recipient assessee's designated e-mail service servers. A simplified illustration of the SMTP model showing this process, as confirmed by the counsel for the petitioners and respondents, is reproduced hereinunder : 26.14. For the purpose of this illustration, the double arrows indicate transmission between computer resources that are of the Income Tax Business Application e-mail software system and therefore, within the control of the Department ; and the single arrows indicate transmission between computer resources that are within the control of or used by the assessee. 26.15.This illustration, as verified by the respondents, attests to the fact that the message transfer agents, i. e., server of the Income Tax Business Application is a computer resource belonging to the Department. As established earlier, the Department is the originator as per section 11(c) of the Act of 2000, hence, the despatch occurs when it leaves the last message transfer agents, server of the Income Tax Business Application and enters a computer resource that the Department does not have control over, i. e., the message transfer agents server of the e-mail service that the assessee is using. .... ... .... . 31. For the reasons and principles that we have laid down, we dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions : 31.1. Category "A" : The notices falling under category "A", which were digitally signed on or after April 1, 2021, are held to bear the date on which the said notices were digitally signed and not March 31, 2021. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction that the said notices are to be considered as show-cause notices under section 148A(b) of the Act as per the directions of the apex court in the Ashish Agarwal, (supra) judgment. 31.2. Category "B" : The notices falling under category "B" which were sent through the registered e-mail ID of the respective jurisdictional Assessing Officers, though not digitally signed are held to be valid. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction to the jurisdictional Assessing Officers to verify and determine the date and time of its despatch as recorded in the Income Tax Business Application portal in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date of issuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after April 1, 2021, the notices are to be considered as show-cause notices under section 148A(b) as per the directions of the apex court in the Ashish Agarwal (supra) judgment.

Sandhya Singh ITA No. 585/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 31.3. Category "C" : The petitions challenging notices falling under category "C" which were digitally signed on March 31, 2021, are disposed of with the direction to the jurisdictional Assessing Officers to verify and determine the date and time of despatch as recorded in the Income Tax Business Application portal in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date of issuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after April 1, 2021, the notices are to be considered as show-cause notices under section 148A(b) as per the directions of the apex court in the Ashish Agarwal (supra) judgment. 31.4. Category "D" : The petitions challenging notices falling under category "D" which were only uploaded in the e-filing portal of the assessees without any real time alert, are disposed of with the direction to the jurisdictional Assessing Officers to determine the date and time when the assessees viewed the notices in the e-filing portal, as recorded in the Income Tax Business Application portal and conclude such date as the date of issuance in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment. If such date of issuance is determined to be on or after April 1, 2021, the notices will be construed as issued under section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 as per the Ashish Agarwal (supra) judgment. 31.5. Category "E" : The petitions challenging notices falling under category "E" which were manually despatched, are disposed of with the direction to the jurisdictional Assessing Officers to determine in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment, the date and time when the notices were delivered to the post office for despatch and consider the same as date of issuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after April 1, 2021, the notices are to be construed as show-cause notices under section 148A(b) as per the directions of the apex court in the Ashish Agarwal (supra) judgment." 24. With the aforesaid judicial precedents and the fact that the Delhi High Court has extensively dealt with these contentions (which have also been the contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax, for the respondents, in the present batch of writ petitions), and rendered the judgment in favour of the assessee, and which has not been further challenged by the respondent-Department till now. Therefore, we also are fully in agreement and endorse the views laid down by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal (supra) and hold that the impugned notices in all these batch of writ petitions are barred by limitation under Sections 148 and 149 of the Act, since the said notices have left the I.T.B.A. portal on or after 01.04.2021.”

“9. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the Revenue. On perusal of the above e-mail communication by the revenue, we find that the time of sending of the email is clearly mentioned as 03:53:49 AM on 01.04.2021, and the time of delivery is mentioned as 03:53:52 AM on 01.04.2021. This electronic trail constitutes a contemporaneous record of the actual communication of the notice to the assessee. We find that the precise argument advanced by the Revenue, that mere generation or dispatch of the notice on the Income-tax portal on 31.03.2021 should be treated as issuance, notwithstanding its communication on 01.04.2021, has been categorically examined and rejected by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Kalyan Chillara v. DCIT (supra). In this regard, we have gone through the para nos. 16 to 24 of the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Kalyan Chillara v. DCIT (supra), which is to the following effect: XXX (this decision is already re-produced above) 10. On perusal of above, we find that after analysing the entire law relating to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (449 ITR 517), the Hon'ble Telangana High Court has held that the date and time mentioned in the email by which the notice is communicated to the assessee shall be treated as the date of issuance of the notice for the purposes of section 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court has further held that mere uploading or generation of the notice on the Income-tax portal does not amount to "issuance" unless the same is actually communicated to the assessee, and that the electronic evidence reflecting the date and time of email communication is determinative for this purpose. Respectfully following the said binding precedent, we hold that notwithstanding the Revenue's contention that the notice may have been generated or dispatched on the portal on 31.03.2021, the notice under section 148, for the purposes of the Act, must be treated as having been issued on 01.04.2021, being the date and time reflected in the email communication sent to the assessee. 11. Once it is held that the notice under section 148 was issued on 01.04.2021, the reassessment proceedings are governed by the substituted reassessment regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from that date, as held by the hon'ble Telangana High Court at para no. 17 of the order. Under the said regime, compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 148A of the Act is a condition precedent for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the Ld. A.O. has not followed the procedure prescribed under section 148A of the Act prior to issuance of the notice under section