R.R. DEVELOPERS,PAASCHIM BARDHAMAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1344/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 July 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the signed copy provided by the department was not genuinely signed by the issuing officer. Citing CBDT Instruction No.01/2018 (dated 12.02.2018, para 4.2), which mandates digital signatures for all e-Proceeding communications, the Tribunal concluded that the unsigned notice under Section 148 was invalid, thereby annulling the consequential assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18, challenging an unsigned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. A delay of 128 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The assessee contended that the Section 148 notice, dated 09.07.2018, was unsigned, while the department presented a signed copy.

What were the issues?

Whether an unsigned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid, especially in light of CBDT instructions mandating digital signatures for e-Proceeding communications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 03/07/2025Pronounced: 03/07/2025

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 13.12.2023, passed for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Shri Somnath Ghosh, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal of the assessee is barred by 128 day. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay which are not found false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Accordingly, the delay of 128 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.

4.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on 09.07.2018 was unsigned. The said notice reads as follows :-

5.

The same was put to the ld. Sr. DR and the ld.Sr. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has sent a copy of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the same is found to be signed. The said copy as provided by the ld. Sr. DR reads as follows :-

1.

6. A perusal of the signature in the notice u/s.148 of the Act shows that against the name of Arvind Kumar, a signature has been put. The signature is as found in the assessment order in the case of assessing authority. This clearly shows that the signature in the notice u/s.148 of the Act as produced by the ld. Sr. DR is not one that is signed by Shri Arvind Kumar, the issuing officer. This also supports the stand of the ld. AR that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act was unsigned.

7.

Without making any other statements or comments on the said issue, as it is noticed that the notice issued to the assessee u/s.148 of the Act is unsigned and as it is noticed that the Instruction issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.01/2018 dated 12.02.2018 in para 4.2 has categorically made it compulsory for all department orders/communications/notices being issued to the assessee through the ‘e-Proceeding’ facility are to be signed digitally by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the unsigned notice u/s.148 of the Act issued against the present assessee is said to be invalid and the consequential assessment is hereby annulled.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →