ASRO ARCADE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.- 44(1)

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5065/2026HC DelhiDLHC01015727202616 April 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the notice dated 31.08.2024, bearing the name and designation of the issuing authority, was validly authenticated in accordance with Section 282A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that in the current digital era, where computer-generated notices are common, the inscription of the name and designation is sufficient authentication, as a digital document may not bear a physical signature. While a digital signature might be a proper course, Section 282A(2) does not mandate it. The Court found no irregularity in the notice. The Court also noted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were from an era before the widespread use of computers and electronically generated documents and were therefore not guiding in the present context. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition when deciding the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, ASRO ARCADE, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 18.03.2026 for Assessment Year 2022-2023, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The sole basis for the challenge was that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 31.08.2024, which initiated the reassessment proceedings, was not signed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that an unsigned notice is invalid and renders the subsequent assessment order void. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.- 44(1), contended that the notice bore the name and designation of the issuing officer, which, according to Section 282A(2) of the Act, is sufficient authentication. The respondent also argued that the petitioner had not raised this objection before the Assessing Officer and was raising it belatedly before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid if it bears the name and designation of the issuing authority but lacks a physical signature, in light of Section 282A of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a notice must be signed by the issuing authority to be valid, relying on Section 282A of the Act. They contended that an unsigned notice is illegal, making the subsequent assessment order void and without jurisdiction. The petitioner cited Umashankar Mishra v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Y. Narayana Chetty v. Income-Tax Officer. Revenue's Contention: The respondent argued that Section 282A(2) of the Act provides that a notice is deemed authenticated if the name and office of the designated income-tax authority are printed, stamped, or otherwise written thereon. They contended that the notice, bearing the name and designation of the issuing officer, complies with this provision. The respondent also argued that the petitioner waived this objection by not raising it before the Assessing Officer and by allowing an assessment order to be passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 282A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5065/2026 CM APPL. 24820/2026 CM APPL. 24852/2026 ASRO ARCADE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Chand and Mr. Keshav Rai, Advs. versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.- 44(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Sr SC with Ms Monica Benjamin, Mr. Gibran Naushad, JSCs, Mr. Rohit Chakraborty and Ms Nancy Jain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR % 16.04.2026

O R D E R

1.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 18.03.2026 for Assessment Year 2022-2023 that was passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:10:46

2.

The only premise on which the petition is founded, is that prior to passing of the impugned assessment order, the notice (dated 31.08.2024) which was issued under Section 148 of the Act 1961 to the petitioner did not have the signature of the Assessing Officer (AO).

3.

Relying upon the provision of Section 282A of the Act of 1961, learned counsel argued that unless a notice is signed by the issuing authority, it cannot be said to be a valid notice.

4.

Learned counsel argued that since the genesis of the proceedings is an unsigned and illegal notice, the impugned assessment order is void and without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

5.

Ms Monica Benjaman, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Department invited Court’s attention towards the sub-Section (2) of Section 282A of the Act of 1961 and submitted that since the impugned notice bears the name and designation of the issuing officer [Prabal Gupta, WARD 44(1), Delhi], the same is in accordance with the statutory provision.

6.

She also argued that the petitioner had not taken any objection about purported irregulatory in the impugned notice before the AO and therefore, such objection (though not sustainable in the eye of law) cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before this Court that too at such a belated stage, when the petitioner had already suffered an assessment order.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, relied upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 17.04.1982 passed in the case of Umashankar Mishra v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1982] 11 Taxman 75 (MP) and the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court dated 15.10.1958 rendered in the case of Y. Narayana Chetty v. Income- Tax Officer reported in [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC). This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:10:46

8.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9.

The scan copy of the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 is pasted hereinfra :

10.

A simple look at the above notice reveals that it bears the name and designation of the issuing authority. According to us, the same falls within the ambit of sub-Section (2) of Section 282A of the Act 1961, which This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:10:46

provision reads thus : “(2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by any income tax authority, shall be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon.”

11.

Since the name and the designation of the issuing officer has been mentioned, according to us, no signature is necessary. In the present era, when computer generated notice(s) and order(s) are being issued, the inscription of name(s) and the designation(s) is enough, as no digital document can bear the signature.

12.

May be a digital signature is a proper course, but since sub section (2) of Section 282A of the Act of 1961 does not enjoin upon the issuing authority to affix digital signature, we are of view that there is no irregulatory worth the name in the notice under consideration. Because, in any case name and designation as required under Section 282A(2) of the Act of 1961 has been mentioned.

13.

So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same are of years 1982 and 1991, when the computers and electronically generated documents were not in vogue. The law, commerce and procedures are ever evolving; the judgment of years 1982 and 1991 on the issue in hand cannot be a guiding force in the present digital era.

14.

The writ petition merits rejection, which we hereby do.

15.

Considering that the petitioner has been pursuing the present writ petition (which was filed on 08.04.2026) the Appellate Authority shall This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:10:46

consider the time consumed in pursuing the present writ petition (from 08.04.2026, till 16.04.2026) in accordance with law.

16.

With these observations, the petition along with pending applications is dismissed.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 16, 2026/dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:10:46

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →