Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2020-21. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, arguing that the notice under Section 148 and the approval under Section 151 were unsigned, rendering them invalid.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was unsigned and therefore invalid. Furthermore, the notice under Section 143(2) was vague and its annexure was blank, making it ambiguous. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was valid when the notice was unsigned and the subsequent notice under Section 143(2) was vague.
Sections Cited
148, 151, 143(2), 147, 132, 132A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
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:-
“What is/are the Issue(s) on which the clarification is required? As per Annexure”. The annexure attached to the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is blank, making the notice vague and invalid. Even, the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is unsigned. The ld. Counsel asserted that unsigned and vague notice is invalid, hence, assessment proceedings consequent to such invalid notice is bad in law, and unsustainable. He thus, prayed for quashing the assessment.
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.
Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 11th day of March, 2026.