GOPAL PURUSHOTTAM VEGAD,AMRAVATI vs. ITO-WARD 5, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 12/04/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the assessee press the ground of appeal regarding the validity of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the ITO, Ward-5, Amravati. He drew our attention at page No.2 of the paper book where notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 has been placed and is reproduced herein below:

From the above, it is clear that Ld. AO has issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act for reassessment of income of the assessee but not signed manually or digitally on it. In this regard, the Ld.counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO [2023] 150 taxmann.com 60 (Bom), wherein it has held that “where a reopening notice u/s 148 was issued upon assessee without signature of Assessing officer affixed on it either digitally or manually, said notice was invalid and same would not vest Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassessment income of assessee”. Ld. counsel further relied on the recent decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ambernath City Hospital (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2026] 182 taxmann.com 268 (Bom), wherein it has been held that “where Assessing Officer issued reopening notice which was neither signed manually nor digitally such defect violated statutory mandate of section 282A and was not curable u/s 292B or 292BB, thus impugned notice and all consequential proceedings

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. He further submitted that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued without signed digitally, but is issued through ITBA portal, hence, it is deemed to be valid u/s. 292BB of the Act.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record and also the judgements cited before us. From the records, we observe that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the income of the assessee. Consequently, the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee is invalid. Accordingly, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into consideration of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on identical issue and respectfully

following the doctrine of binding precedent and maintaining judicial consistency, when the Lordships quashed the reassessment proceedings without signature of the Assessing Officer on it either digitally or manually, we accordingly quash and set aside the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued by the Ld. AO u/s 148 of the Act. The assessment proceedings have no legal legs to stand upon and the entire addition made is deleted. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.