UMA KANT GARG,DELHI vs. ACIT, DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 24.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2020-21.

Shri D. C. Garg, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee in appeal has raised legal ground assailing validity of reopening of assessment. The assessee in grounds of appeal has also challenged addition on merits. The ld. Counsel pointed that reopening of assessment is bad in law as the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) are unsigned. To substantiate his contention, he referred to copy of the notice placed at page 2 of the paper book and the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act placed at pages 3 and 4 of the paper book. The ld. Counsel further pointed that after the issuance of the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 29.06.2024 declaring income of Rs.10,23,800/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 143(2) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 07.10.2024. The said notice is at pages 26 to 29 of the paper book. In the said notice it is mentioned that:-

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the assessment proceedings and submitted that the assessee raised no specific objection before the AO or the CIT(A) on validity of notice. Hence, such objection by the assessee at this stage should not be entertain.

Submissions made by rival sides on the limited issue of validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and subsequent notice u/s.143(2) of the Act are heard. The assessee has raised a legal ground i.e. ground no. 2 and ground no. 4 of appeal challenging validity of reopening of assessment as the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the approval u/s.151 of the Act is unsigned. A copy of the notice u/s.148 of A bare perusal of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act would show that it is unsigned. It is no more res integra that an unsigned notice is invalid and carry no legal sanctity. It is also relevant to refer to a ‘note’ at bottom of the notice. The note reads; “If digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be taken as date of the document.” Since the said notice is unsigned it shall be presumed that the notice is undated as well. The reopening of assessment based on such defective notice is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

In ground no. 4 of appeal, the assessee has assailed validity of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. A perusal of notice issued u/s.143(2) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at page 26 to 29 of the paper book shows that the issues on which further clarification is required is not decipherable from the said notice. Though, the notice says “As per Annexure”, the annexure attached to the notice is blank. This makes the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act ambiguous. The ambiguity and vagueness in notice u/s.143(2) of the Act vitiates the assessment. Thus, the assessment is liable to be quashed on this ground as well.

For the aforesaid reasons, assessment for AY 2020-21 is quashed.

Since, the assessee succeeds on jurisdictional issues raised in ground no. 2 and 4 of appeal. the other grounds challenging addition on merits have become academic, hence, not deliberate upon at this stage.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.