Loading High Court cases…
585 orders · Page 12 of 12
The High Court held that the present writ petition was covered by its previous order dated 15th October 2025 in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025, which was based on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms similar to the previous order. The petitioner was directed to pursue their appeal(s) already filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order. The petitioner was permitted to raise contentions regarding the invalidity of the impugned notice and order in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited. Furthermore, the petitioner was allowed to file an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision, with an instruction for expeditious consideration. The impugned assessment was to remain inoperative until the proceedings before the Appellate Forum were decided. All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings were expressly kept open. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court held that the present writ petition was covered by its earlier order dated 15th October 2025 in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025, which was based on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann. Com 303 (Bombay). Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition in terms similar to the prior order. The petitioner was directed to pursue appeals already filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and was permitted to raise contentions regarding the invalidity of the notice and order in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited. The petitioner was also allowed to file an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision, with an expectation of expeditious consideration. The impugned assessment was to remain unacted upon until the appellate proceedings were decided. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the entire matter was remitted to the appellate forum.
The High Court held that the present writ petition was covered by its previous order dated October 15, 2025, in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025, which was based on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann. Com 303 (Bombay). Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as the previous order. The operative directions included: (a) The petitioner shall pursue their appeal(s) filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order, with liberty to raise contentions on the notice and order being invalid in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). (b) The petitioner was permitted to file an application before the Appellate Authority praying for the appeal to be disposed of in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision, with the Appellate Authority directed to expeditiously consider such application. (c) The impugned assessment shall not be acted upon until the proceedings before the Appellate Forum are decided. (d) All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings were expressly kept open. No issue was left undecided; the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds based on precedent.
The High Court held that the present writ petition was covered by its earlier order dated 15th October 2025 in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025, which was based on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann. Com 303 (Bombay). Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as the prior order. The operative directions included: (a) the petitioner shall pursue appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and is permitted to raise contentions regarding the invalidity of the notice and order in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited; (b) the petitioner is permitted to file an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision, which the Appellate Authority shall consider expeditiously; (c) the impugned assessment shall not be acted upon until the proceedings before the Appellate Forum are decided; and (d) all contentions of the parties on pending proceedings are expressly kept open. No specific issue was left undecided; the petition was disposed of based on precedent.
The High Court noted that the Revenue had submitted a letter dated July 16, 2025, which was taken on record. Upon perusing this letter, the Court found that the re-assessment proceedings had indeed been dropped. Consequently, the Court held that nothing further survived in the Writ Petition. The Court reasoned that since the primary action being challenged (the re-assessment proceedings) had been withdrawn by the Revenue, the petition had become infructuous. The Court did not delve into the second issue regarding the limit of escaped income as the matter was disposed of on the grounds of infructuousness. The operative direction was to dispose of the Writ Petition as being rendered infructuous.
The High Court held that the present writ petition was covered by its earlier order dated 15th October 2025 in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025, which was based on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as the prior order. The operative directions included permitting the petitioner to pursue appeals already filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), allowing the petitioner to raise contentions regarding the invalidity of the notice and order in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited, and permitting the filing of an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision. The assessment was to not be acted upon until the Appellate Forum decided the proceedings, and all contentions of the parties were expressly kept open. No issue was left undecided; the petition was disposed of based on the cited precedents.
The High Court held that it is bound to follow the decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as the present case is fully covered by it. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, and if revived, there would be a stay on the impugned notice until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that it was bound to follow the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as the present case was squarely covered by it. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, and upon revival, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the Writ Petition. The court acknowledged the peculiar facts and circumstances presented by the petitioner's counsel. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. No order was made regarding costs. The court directed that all concerned parties should act upon a digitally signed copy of the order, which could be produced via fax or email.
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 28th March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act for Assessment Year 2014-15, and the order dated 9th February 2022 disposing of the objections. The Court held that for valid reopening after amendment in 1989, tangible material must come into possession post-assessment, enabling the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income has escaped assessment. In this case, the reasons for reopening were based on materials already considered during the original assessment, and no new tangible material was brought to light. The Court also noted that the validity of reopening must be tested on the basis of reasons recorded, not on subsequent affidavits. The Court distinguished the case from Honda Siel Power Products Limited, emphasizing that the sole allegation here was the failure to furnish a certificate, which was not statutorily required for the assessee's case, unlike the admitted expenditure disallowance in the cited case. The ratio is that reopening based on pre-existing material or a misinterpretation of statutory requirements, without new tangible evidence post-assessment, is invalid.
The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on the Supreme Court's judgment. The primary direction is that all Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This is to facilitate their hearing alongside similar matters already scheduled for 31.08.2026. The Court has granted petitioners one week to amend their petitions to explicitly challenge Section 147-A. If amendments are not made prior to transfer, they can be completed within one week after the transfer. The Court also noted that petitioners have the option to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. No decision has been made on the validity of the section itself.
The Tribunal, following the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after March 29, 2022. The Court noted that this position has been consistently upheld by the Bombay High Court, leading to the allowance of numerous writ petitions. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought via a praecipe, and if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. If the SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is dismissed, there would be no question of revival.
The High Court, following its consistent view in numerous cases, including Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle, held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on March 29, 2022. The Court found that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is empowered to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court, allowing revival through a praecipe. If revived, the petition would be decided on its merits. If the Supreme Court upholds Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the petition will not be revived.
The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the court has issued procedural directions. It has directed the respective advocates to identify and list the writ petitions where the validity of Section 147-A is intended to be challenged. These identified matters are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. The petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are carried out, these matters will be transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, as a similar group is scheduled for 31.08.2026. If amendments are not made before transfer, they can be carried out within one week after the transfer. Petitioners are also given the option to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred. No decision has been made on the substantive validity of the section.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on March 29, 2022. This decision was based on the Court's consistent reliance on its own prior judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2) (2024), which established that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) can issue such notices post-promulgation. The Court acknowledged the contrary view from the Delhi High Court but prioritized its own binding precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on March 29, 2022. This decision is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court, as established in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The Court acknowledged the contrary view from the Delhi High Court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. and others but chose to follow its own precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court, and in that event, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court upholds the Hexaware decision, the petition will not be revived. Any revival would necessitate a decision on the merits of the other issues raised in the petition.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's argument that the notice was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of Assessment Year 2015-16 was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the notice was dated March 28, 2021. While in normal circumstances, the four-year period would have expired on March 31, 2020, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) extended all actions due to be completed by March 20, 2020, to March 31, 2021. Therefore, the four-year period did not expire before March 31, 2021, and the notice was effectively issued within the extended period. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) for this interpretation. Consequently, the unamended provisions of Section 151 of the Act applied, requiring sanction from the Joint Commissioner. Since the sanction was granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, the Tribunal found the notice to be bad for want of proper sanction. The Tribunal also referred to a previous decision involving similar facts regarding sanction by the Commissioner instead of the Additional Commissioner, which was upheld. The Writ Petition was allowed, quashing the notice dated March 28, 2021, and the assessment order dated March 26, 2022.
The Tribunal decided that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on March 29, 2022. This decision is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The Court found the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. unpersuasive in light of its own binding precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after March 29, 2022, when the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated. This decision is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court, particularly its judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court found that the scheme mandates that such notices can only be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on March 29, 2022. This decision was based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court, specifically the Division Bench judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The court found this precedent binding and preferred it over the contrary view expressed by the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on March 29, 2022. This decision was based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The court found this precedent binding. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The court clarified that revival could be sought by a praecipe, and if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other raised issues. If the SLP against Hexaware is dismissed, there would be no question of revival.
The High Court held that, consistent with its own prior judgments, particularly in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacks the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme came into effect on March 29, 2022. The Court reiterated that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is empowered to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Court, however, granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. on this issue. The revival could be sought by filing a praecipe, and upon revival, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there would be no question of revival. Any revived petition would be decided on its merits, considering other raised issues.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after March 29, 2022, following the implementation of the faceless reassessment scheme. This decision was based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which the Court reiterated. The Court found the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision on concurrent jurisdiction unpersuasive in light of its own established precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, allowed the writ petition. It reiterated its consistent stance, based on the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, that after the faceless reassessment scheme came into effect on March 29, 2022, only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has the authority to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings or orders. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. In such an event, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. If the Supreme Court upholds the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival.
The Tribunal held that, consistent with its own prior rulings based on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after March 29, 2022. The court reiterated that only the FAO can issue such notices post the faceless scheme's implementation. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings/orders were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The court clarified that revival could be sought via a praecipe, and if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, there would be no revival.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on March 29, 2022. This decision is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court, particularly the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), which established that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) can issue such notices post-implementation of the scheme. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought via a praecipe, and if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. If the Supreme Court upholds Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there would be no question of revival.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after March 29, 2022, following the implementation of the faceless reassessment scheme. This decision was based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court, particularly the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The court found this precedent binding. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The court also noted that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the court is acting in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 10, 2026. The court has directed that all writ petitions where the validity of Section 147-A is intended to be challenged should be identified by the respective advocates. These identified matters are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court for final hearing, as a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2026. The petitioners are granted one week to amend their petitions to specifically challenge Section 147-A. If amendments are not made prior to the transfer, they can be carried out within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court also noted that petitioners have the option to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred.
The High Court held that the criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue when the assessment order, which formed its basis, has been set aside by the CIT(A) and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted. The Court noted that the order of the CIT(A) had attained finality. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal, the Court stated that in cases of exoneration on merits where the allegation is found unsustainable and the person is held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be permitted. The Court found that the ITAT had quashed the reassessment proceedings, eliminating the very foundation for the prosecution. Consequently, the impugned order of the Learned Magistrate issuing process was set aside, and the complaint case was dismissed. The Petitioner's writ petition was allowed.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order, thereby dismissing the Complaint Case No. 342/SW/2048. The Court relied on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal, which states that in cases of exoneration on merits, where allegations are found unsustainable and the person is held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be allowed to continue due to the higher standard of proof in criminal cases. In the present matter, the Court noted that the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order dated December 30, 2016, and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Since the CIT(A)'s order had attained finality, the criminal prosecution based on the same facts could not be permitted to continue. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order, dismissing the Complaint Case. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal, which held that criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue if the assessee is exonerated on merits, as the standard of proof in criminal cases is higher. In this case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had set aside the assessment order dated December 30, 2016, and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. This order of the CIT(A) had attained finality. Therefore, the Court concluded that the criminal prosecution, based on the same set of facts, could not be permitted to continue. The Court did not explicitly address the argument regarding the CBDT Circular, as the decision was based on the quashing of the assessment order and the principle of exoneration on merits.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, after hearing the arguments for some time and indicating an inclination not to entertain the Writ Petition, granted the petitioner's request. The Court held that the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to avail of the alternate remedy by filing an Appeal. The Court further directed that if there were any issues with limitation regarding the proposed appeal(s), the CIT (Appeals) shall condone the delay. The appeal(s), concerning both the Assessment Order and the Penalty Order, are to be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court held that the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid because it was unsigned, neither digitally nor manually. This finding was squarely based on the Court's own previous decision in Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs. Income Tax Officer, which held that an unsigned notice is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer. The Court also noted that Section 282A of the Act mandates that such notices must be signed. The Court found the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in Sonia Gandhi misplaced, as that case did not involve an unsigned notice. Furthermore, the Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the defect was curable under Section 292B or 292BB, stating that an unsigned notice is invalid from inception and not a curable defect. Section 292BB was also deemed inapplicable as it does not validate an unsigned notice. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned Notice under Section 148, the Section 148A orders, and all subsequent assessment and penalty proceedings.
The High Court held that the entire refund for AY 2015-16 could not have been adjusted against the demand for AY 2010-11, given that the appeal against the AY 2010-11 demand was still pending before the CIT(A). The Court reasoned that at the highest, only 20% of the demand for AY 2010-11 could have been adjusted, and the balance should have been refunded. The Court directed that 20% of the outstanding demand for AY 2010-11 be retained by the Department from the refund due for AY 2015-16. The balance amount is to be refunded to the Petitioner with interest, if any, within 30 days. The 20% retained will be subject to the outcome of the pending appeal. The CIT(A) was requested to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months. The balance amount of the demand for AY 2010-11 will remain stayed until the disposal of the appeal.