HIMANSHU SHARMA,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2)(4), AGRA, AGRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH (SMC), AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 462/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Himanshu Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2)(4), 74-75, Chitrakoop Colony, Agra. Behind Railway Station, Nagur, Rajasthan-341001. PAN : AQGPS4426G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nitin Goyal, Adv. Sh. Amit Goyal, Adv. Department by Sh. Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR (Physical hearing) Date of hearing 20.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 22.04.2026 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.07.2025 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the assessment order. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was not justified in sustaining the assessment order dated 18th December, 2017 passed by Ld. AQ without

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

service of notice u/s 148 upon the appellant in accordance to condition precedent in section 282 of I.T.Act, 1961, therefore, assessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the sanction giving by the Ld. PCIT, Agra u/s 151 of 1.T.Act, 1961 whereas it was wrong, giving in the machinal manner without application of independent mind 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,94,392 being 5% of the total shares transactions of Rs. 71,88,78,458 made by the Ld. AO on the basis of theoretical and unilateral observation, surmises and conjecture, therefore, entire addition of Rs. 34,94,392 deserve to be deleted. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 being initial money invested/deposit in shares transaction made by the Ld. AO on the basis of his subjective opinion and wrongly drawn unilateral inference which is liable to be deleted. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, without providing any documents from the assessment records whereas application was filed in this score, absence of these documents the appellant could not defend his case properly in the appeal, whereas the learned CIT (A) was fully conversant with this fact, passed ex-parte appeal order is bad in law and liable to be restore back the matter. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the levy of interest of Rs. 9,07,139/- u/s 234A and Rs. 9,69,700 under section 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO regarding initiation of provision of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of I.T.Act, 1961 in the appellant case. 9. That the appeal as well as assessment order are against the law and facts of the case.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Praveen Saxena vs. ITO in ITA No. 208 & 209/AGR/2025 dated 24.03.2026. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR objected to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee and submitted that necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act was obtained from Ld. PCIT, as per provisions of section 151 of the Act. Further, submitted that it was not required for Ld. PCIT to provide elaborate reasoning to arrive at a find of approval when he was satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions:- 1. Experion Developers P. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 422 ITR 355 ( Del. H.C.) 2. VirbhadraSingh vs. DCIT reported in 88 taxmann.com 88 ( HP H.C.) 3. Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT reported in 407 ITR 594 (Del. H.C.)

4 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

notice u/s 148 of the Act”. We observed that on similar approval granted by the Ld. PCIT, the Coordinate Bench has held as under:-

“5. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for assuming jurisdiction originally under section 147 of the Act together with the approval granted by the Learned PCIT, Aligarh in terms of section 151 of the Act, are placed on record by the Learned AR. First of all, we find that the Learned PCIT , Aligarh while according his approval had not even bothered to mention the date of approval. On perusal of the proforma seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act, we find that the Learned PCIT, Aligarh had merely stated that it is a fit case for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. This sort of approval granted u/s 151 of the Act was held to be approval granted without application of mind and construed as mechanical by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyenka Lime and Chemicals Ltd reported in 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC). The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 64 taxmann.com 313. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs. NC Cables Ltd reported in 391 ITR 11 (Del) had also held the same, wherein, the approving authority had merely stated “approved” in the proforma while granting approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This approval was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High court to be a mechanical approval. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision in the case of SBC Minerals P Ltd vs ACIT reported in 475 ITR 360 (Del) had also held that similar kind of approval granted in a mechanical manner would vitiate the basic assumption of jurisdiction of the ld AO resulting in quashing of reassessment proceedings. Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Ltd vs DCIT reported in 464 ITR 385 (Bom). We find that the Learned AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of Vikas Gupta vs Union of India in WP No. 554 of 2022 dated 08-09-2022. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:- “6. Facts of Writ Tax No.554 of 2022 are that as per approval under Section 151 of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short ''PCIT') granted approval on 31.03.2021 at 07:05 P.M., i.e. 19:05 hours by digitally signing the approval. Jurisdictional notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was digitally signed by the respondent No.3/ Assessing officer on 31.03.2021 at 05:43 P.M., i.e. 17:43 hours, which is prior to the grant of digitally signed approval by 5 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

the PCIT under Section 151 of the Act, 1961. As per Section 151 of the Act, 1961, as stood at the relevant time no notice shall be issued by the Assessing Officer after expiry of four years from the end of the Assessment Year unless the Principal Chief Commissioner/ PCIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for issuing such notice. 7…………. 8…………... Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:- 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 are wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, it was issued without prior satisfaction/approval of the competent authority under Section 151 of the Act, 1961. Since at the point of time when notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 were issued, there was no valid satisfaction/ approval of the competent authority, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Hence, the notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 are without jurisdiction and thus invalid. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings including reassessment orders are also without jurisdiction. Section 282A of the Act, 1961 has no relevance with respect to the recording of satisfaction or prior permission by the PCIT under Section 151 of the Act, 1961. Submissions on behalf of the respondents:- 10. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India has submitted that the unsigned satisfaction of the PCIT stands validated in view of Section 282A of the Act, 1961 inasmuch as the digital or physical unsigned satisfaction recorded by the PCIT shall be deemed to be authenticated under Section 282A of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and Sections 2(d), 2(p) and 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 inasmuch as satisfaction bears the name and office of a designated income tax authority, i.e. PCIT. He submits that the moment the PCIT has pushed in "Generate Tap in ITBA System" his satisfaction under Section 151 of the Act, 1961, would be deemed to be an authenticated document in terms of Section 282A and thus is a valid satisfaction under Section 151 of the Act, 1961. The digital signature affixed by the PCIT on his aforesaid satisfaction 6 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

under Section 151 of the Act, 1961, subsequent to issuance of the notice by the Assessing Officer under Section 148, would not invalidate the notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. He referred to paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 02.05.2022 sworn by Nisha Gupta, Income Tax officer, Ward-5(2)(5), NOIDA, which read as under: "17. That a perusal of the aforesaid provisions demonstrates that if a notice or other document is issued served or given for the purpose of the Act by any income tax authority, the same shall be deemed to be authenticated, if the name and office of a designated income tax authority is printed, stamp or otherwise written thereon. 18. That the aforesaid provisions of law clearly demonstrates that the approval issued by the PCIT in electronic form, without affixing digital signature is also deemed to be authenticated and therefore affixation of digital signature is not a precondition for validation of the document. 19. That it is respectfully submitted that in view of the above, the approval granted by PCIT is valid approval even if the digital signature was affixed later in point of time." Discussion and Findings:- 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the writ petitions. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce below the relevant provisions of the Act, 1961, the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and Information and Technology Act, 2000:- "A. Income Tax Act, 1961 "Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. Section 148. (1) ………. Sanction for issue of notice. Section 151. (1) ………. Authentication of notices and other documents. 282A. (1)………… B. Income Tax Rules, 1962:-

7 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

Authentication of notices and other documents. Rule 127A. (1)………………… C. Information Technology Act, 2000:- Section 2(d) ― …………… Section 2(p) ―……….. Section 2(t) ― ……….. Explanation to Section 66-A- …………. 12. …………… 13. ……………. 14. Thus, the following questions arise for consideration:- (a) Whether an unsigned content in an electronic record said to be pushed through electronic mode at a particular point of time, can be said to be a valid satisfaction of the PCIT under Section 151 for assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to issue jurisdictional notice to an assessee under Section 148 of the Act, 1961? (b) Whether impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued by the Assessing Officer without satisfaction signed by the PCIT under Section 151 of the Act, 1961, is a valid notice? 15. The whole case set up by the respondents is that "unsigned approval" issued in electronic form to the Assessing Officer is a valid approval as it is an authenticated document within the meaning of Section 282A of the Act, 1961. Therefore, we proceed to examine correctness of the stand taken by the respondents in their oral submissions as also made in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of supplementary counter affidavit dated 02.05.2022. Whether unsigned alleged approval is an authenticated document under Section 282A of the Act, 1961:- 16. Sub-section (1) of Section 282A contains the following necessary conditions: (i) such notice or other document shall be signed by that Authority and (ii) issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority (iii) in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. 8 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

used. The only two which can have any real relation to the present matter are the following: 1. "To write (one's name or mark) on, originally at the bottom of a document, especially as a witness or contesting party; to sign one's name to." This meaning is described as "rare." 2. "To sign one's name to; to signify assent or adhesion to by signing one's name; to attest by signing." This appears to be its modern meaning, and is also one of the meanings given to the word "sign", namely "to attest or confirm by adding one's signature; to affix one's name to (a document) etc." 22. ……… 23. ……………….. 24. …………….. 25. …………. 26. In the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha and others, (1971) 1 SCC 453 (para-5) : AIR 1971 SC 730 : (1971) 79 ITR 603, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the validity of recording satisfaction under Section 151 by the Commissioner for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and held as under: "5. In his report the Income-tax Officer does not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that this is a fit case to issue notice under Section 148. The material that he had before him for issuing notice under Section 148 is not mentioned in the report. In his report he vaguely refers to certain communications received by him from the C.I.T., Bihar and Orissa. He does not mention the facts contained in those communications. All that he says is that from those communications "it appears that these persons (alleged creditors) are name lenders and the transactions are bogus". He has not even come to a prima facie conclusion that the transactions to which he referred are not genuine transactions. He appears to have had only a vague feeling that they may be bogus transactions. Such a conclusion 'does not fulfil the requirements of Section 151(2). What that provision requires is that he must give reasons for issuing a notice under Section 148. In other words he must have some prima facie grounds before him for taking action 10 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

under Section 148. Further his report mentions : "Hence proper investigation regarding these loans is necessary. In other words his conclusion is that there is a case for investigating as to the truth of the alleged transactions. That is not the same thing as saying that there are reasons to issue notice under Section 148. Before issuing a notice under Section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have either reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year or alternatively notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned above on the part of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Unless the requirements of clause (a) or (b) of Section 147 are satisfied, the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148. From the report submitted by the Income-tax Officer to the Commissioner, it is clear that he could not have had reasons to believe that by reason of the assessee's omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the accounting year in question, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year; nor could it be said that he as a consequence of information in his possession, had reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year. We are not satisfied that the Income-tax Officer had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements of either clause (a) or (b) of Section 147. Therefore he could not have issued a notice under Section 148. Further the report submitted by him under Section 151(2) does not mention any reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. To Question No. 8 in the report which reads "Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under section 148", he just noted the word "yes" and affixed his signatures thereunder. We are of the opinion that if only he had read the report carefully, he could never have come to the conclusion on the material before him that this is a fit case to 11 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

issue notice under Section 148. The important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Both of them, appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under those provisions as of little importance. They have substituted the form for the substance." (Emphasis supplied by me) Question No. (a) and (b) 27. The first and foremost condition under sub-Section (1) of Section 282A is that notice or other document to be issued by any Income Tax Authority shall be signed by that authority. The word "and" has been used in sub-Section (1), in conjunctive sense, meaning thereby that such notice or other document has first to be signed by the authority and thereafter it may be issued either in paper form or may be communicated in electronic form by that authority. In the present set of facts, it is the admitted case of the respondents that the PCIT has not recorded satisfaction under his signature prior to the issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 28. Section 282A (1) of the Act, 1961 specifically provides that a notice or other documents issued by any Income Tax Authority shall be signed by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. Section 151 of the Act, 1961 specifically provides recording of satisfaction by the Prescribed Authority, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Unless such satisfaction is recorded, the Assessing Officer could not get jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148. A satisfaction, to be a valid satisfaction under section 151 of the Act, 1961, has to be recorded by the Prescribed Authority under his signature on application mind and not mechanically, as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal (supra). Unless the Prescribed Authority under section 151 of the Act, 1961 records his satisfaction on application of mind and under his signature, there cannot be a valid satisfaction empowering the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961. In other words, an Assessing Officer may issue jurisdictional notice under Section 148 only after the Prescribed Authority under section 151 of the Act records his satisfaction that it is fit case for issue of notice under section 148. 12 | P a g e

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

ITA No.462/Agr/2025

Rajpal reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) supra in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the reopening has been made in the instant case by not taking approval u/s 151 of the Act from the competent authority in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the entire reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed. Since the reassessment is quashed, the other legal grounds raised by the assessee as well as the grounds raised by the assessee on merits in both the appeals need not be adjudicated and they are left open.” 6. Respectfully following above decision, we are inclined to allow the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee. Other grounds of appeal are not adjudicated at this stage and other grounds are kept open. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2026.

Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 22.04.2026 *Santosh, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

14 | P a g e