Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against assessment orders for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, arguing that the underlying notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were invalid due to the absence of digital or manual signatures. The Revenue confirmed, based on system records, that the notices did not bear visible digital signatures. The tribunal consolidated both appeals due to identical issues and facts.
Held
The tribunal, relying on judgments from the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts, held that unsigned notices issued under Section 148 are invalid and do not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer for reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment orders for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were declared void ab initio.
Key Issues
Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without digital or manual signatures are valid, and if such unsigned notices can confer jurisdiction for reassessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d), Section 144, Section 292B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
The petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 17.03.2022 issued by the first respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Annexure-A], the subsequent adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) [Annexure-A1] of the IT Act, the notice dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-A2], the assessment order dated 24.02.2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act [Annexure-A3] and the consequential penalty orders and demand notices dated 24.08.2023 and 07.07.2023 [Annexures-A4, A5 and A6] are quashed."
Under these circumstances, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders/notices at Annexure-A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,, A6, A7, A8, A9, B1, B2 and B3 dated 21.03.2023, 21.03.2023, 21.03.2023, 21.09.2023, 21.09.2023, 21.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 25,09.2023, 14.03.2022, 26.03.2022 and 27.03.2022, respectively are hereby quashed.”
We are also guided by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, 451 ITR 27. The operative portion of the said judgement reads as under:-
& 517/Ahd/2025 Infinity International Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 6–
“… 18. Sky Light Hospitality (supra) cited by the respondents was also not a case where the notice issued to the assessee was unsigned. That was a case where the notice u/s.148 was issued with a signature, but the address of the assessee was only partly correct. It was in that context that the Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 292B of the Act, where there was a mistake, defect or an omission in the complete address on which the notice was issued to the assessee, would cure such defect, and an objection to the validity of the notice could not be raised. In that fact of the matter, the judgment in Sky Light Hospitality (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, which is one where the signature of the Assessing Officer was not affixed on the notice.
Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in B.K. Gooyee and Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd. (supra) to the facts of the present case, the signature of the Assessing Officer admittedly not having been affixed on the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the notice itself would be invalid and consequently, the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in terms of section 148 of the Act. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umashankar Mishra (supra) has dealt with a similar fact situation where the first substantial question of law dealt with in that case had considered the effect of whether an unsigned notice can be considered as an irregularity or clerical mistake. The Madhya Pradesh High Court after making reference to the conclusions drawn in B.K. Gooyee (supra) by the Calcutta High Court, has taken the view, that a notice without a signature affixed on it is an invalid notice and is effectively no notice in the eyes of law.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umashankar (supra) has further dealt with the second substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the absence of a signature on the notice constitutes a mistake or omission within the meaning of section 292B of the Act and while addressing itself to that question, has concluded that in the absence of a signature on the notice, the same would not constitute a mistake or omission and would not be curable under the provisions of section 292B of the Act.
We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the income of the petitioner. Consequently, the notice dated 02.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act issued to the petitioner being invalid and sought to be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 with which we are concerned in this petition, any steps taken by the respondents in furtherance of notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and order dated 02.04.2022 issued under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act, would be without jurisdiction, and therefore, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we quash and set aside the notice dated 02.04.2022 issued by the respondents u/s.148 of the Act, order dated 02.04.2022 under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act.”
& 517/Ahd/2025 Infinity International Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 7–
Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts and since the factum that the notices issued were not digitally signed is not in dispute as acknowledged by the Revenue, the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the assessments. Hence, the Assessments Orders passed for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 are hereby treated as void ab initio.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
The order is dictated and pronounced in the open Court today on 07.01.2026