Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the stipulated time, barred by 162 days. The assessee submitted a condonation petition with an affidavit, which was found plausible and not false. The revenue did not object to the condonation. The core issue revolves around the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee claimed was unsigned.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, as received by the assessee from the income tax portal, was unsigned. Despite the Revenue presenting a physically signed copy of the same notice, the Tribunal found the discrepancy to be unexplained. The Tribunal held that a notice served to the assessee in an unsigned format is invalid, and consequently, any assessment based on it would also be quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was claimed to be unsigned by the assessee and presented differently by the revenue, is valid and consequential assessment is liable to be upheld.
Sections Cited
148, 147, 148A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Baitarani Mahila Co-operative Vs Income Tax officer, Ward-1, Bhadrak Limited, Maa Kali Nagar, Chandbali, Bhadrak-756133 PAN No. : AABAT 9505 D (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) .. (��यथ� / Respondent) �नधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwalla, CA राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 4 /12/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 4 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 8.12.2024 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10228445 for the assessment year 2018-19.
Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwalla, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.
At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 162 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19) objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has been served with a notice u/s.148 of the Act, which is unsigned. The said notice reads as follows:
“ (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19) 5. It was the submission that the said notice is dated 24.3.2022. Ld AR has also placed before us copy of 148A(d) order issued by the Same Officer dated 24.3.2022, which is digitally signed, which reads as follows: “
It was the submission that 148 notice being unsigned, same notice is liable to be set aside/quashed and also consequential assessment also be quashed.
In reply, ld Sr DR has placed before the copy of 148 notice which is physically signed by the Assessing Officer. Same reads as follows:
“ 8. It was the submission that the notice having been physically signed by the Income Tax Officer should be considered as valid. It was the submission that both the notices shown by the assessee and the notice is shown to be (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19) physically signed by the Assessing Officer have the same Document Identification Number, (DIN). It was the submission that notice u/s.148 is liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. Copy of notice, which has been produced by the assessee, which is claimed to be unsigned admittedly is from income tax portal of the assessee. This is the portal from which the notice is received and the notice which is produced by ld Sr DR is admittedly from the assessment records, which is physically signed. It also shows No.1007. The question that comes to our mind that on 24.3.2022, which is the same date where in notice u/s.148 of the Act, the same Assessing Officer has digitally singed in the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act. What stopped the AO from digitally signing the notice u/s.148 of the Act. As the notice u/s.148 of the Act signed digitally and kept on the assessment records, obviously, the notice that the assessee has received on the portal of the assessee should be digitally but the assessee has received the notice as clearly unsigned. Though the DIN no. is the same, the question arises as to why there is a physically signed notice and other available to the assessee is unsigned. This remains unanswered. This being so, as the notice served to the assessee in the portal unsigned is treated to be invalid and consequential assessment would also stand quashed consequence to the unsigned notice.