AMBAR NATH CHAKRAVARTY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

The only issue pressed at the time of hearing was against the order of ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of the assessment which was based upon the invalid notice issued u/s.148 of the Act.

Facts in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 27.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.1,59,010/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter after receiving credible information from the ADIT(Inv.), Unit-2(2), Mumbai, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 28.03.2018, a copy of which is attached at page 79 of the paper book. The AO framed the assessment after taking into account the contentions and submissions of 2 the assessee thereby making addition of Rs.15,38,927/- on account of unexplained money. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we note that undisputedly the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on 28.03.2018 is unsigned. The said notice was issued through e-proceedings. For the sake of ready reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow :-

3 5. We find merit in the contention of the ld. counsel that under instruction No.1/2018[F.No.225/157/2017-ITA.II), dated 12-2-2018, all departmental orders/communications/notices being issued to the assessee through the ‘e-proceedings’ facility are to be signed digitally by the Assessing Officer. The notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is invalid under the said instruction of the CBDT. In our opinion, the said notice is invalid and, therefore, the assessment framed is also invalid and bad in law. This contention of the assessee finds support on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, reported in [2023] 150 taxmann.com 60 (Bombay), wherein it has been held that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act upon the assessee without signature of Assessing Officer affixed on it either digitally or manually, was invalid and the same would not vest Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess income of the assessee. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of B.K.Gooyee Vs. CIT, reported in [1966] 62 ITR 109 (CAL), held that it is incumbent upon the ITO to place his signature on the notice issued. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to quash the reopening of the assessment made by the AO as well as order framed consequentially. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.