Section 148 notice is issued only on actual despatch beyond departmental control; portal generation alone is insufficient.

A notice under section 148 is issued only when it is duly despatched beyond the control of the issuing authority; mere generation on the ITBA portal, creation of a DIN, or internal signing does not complete issuance. For electronic records, despatch occurs when the record leaves the originator's controlled system and enters a computer resource outside that control, so ITBA email triggering and the recorded despatch time govern. Electronic notices sent without a digital signature are not invalid merely for that reason where section 282A and rule 127A permit authentication by the designated name and office details. Mere uploading on the assessee's E-filing account, without prescribed electronic transmission, is not by itself valid service.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether generation of a section 148 notice on the ITBA portal without despatch satisfied the requirement that the notice "shall be issued" under section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether despatch under section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was necessary for electronic issuance and whether delay in ITBA email triggering was attributable to the Department; (iii) whether section 148 notices sent by email without digital signature were valid under section 282A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 127A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; and (iv) whether merely uploading the notice on the assessee's E-filing "My Account" was valid transmission.

Issue (i): whether generation of a section 148 notice on the ITBA portal without despatch satisfied the requirement that the notice "shall be issued" under section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The expression "issued" was held to require more than internal generation or signing of the notice. Drawing from settled authority, the notice must be taken beyond the control of the issuing authority by due despatch; service on the assessee is not the test, but despatch is. Mere creation of a DIN, generation on the portal, or loss of power to alter the document did not by itself complete issuance. For notices generated on 31 March 2021 but despatched on or after 1 April 2021, the later despatch date governed.

Conclusion: The requirement was not satisfied by mere generation. The issue was answered against the Department and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether despatch under section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was necessary for electronic issuance and whether delay in ITBA email triggering was attributable to the Department.

Analysis: The Court applied section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the departmental notifications governing electronic communication. Despatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator. The ITBA email servers remained within the Department's control until the email left those servers for the assessee's email system. The batch-mode delay programmed into the ITBA system did not break attribution to the Department. The date and time of triggering/despatch recorded in ITBA, not the date of generation, determined issuance.

Conclusion: Despatch was a sine qua non and the ITBA delay was attributable to the Department. The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

Issue (iii): whether section 148 notices sent by email without digital signature were valid under section 282A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 127A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: Section 282A and rule 127A permit authentication of electronic notices by printing the name and office of the designated income-tax authority on the email body or attachment, when sent from the designated email address. The provisions relied upon by the petitioners did not apply to section 148 notices, and no provision or binding instruction made digital signature mandatory for such notices. The absence of digital signature, by itself, did not invalidate notices falling in this category.

Conclusion: The notices were valid despite the absence of digital signature. The issue was answered in favour of the Department.

Issue (iv): whether merely uploading the notice on the assessee's E-filing "My Account" was valid transmission under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Uploading alone was not the statutorily prescribed mode of service. The statutory framework contemplated electronic transmission in the manner prescribed, and the notification scheme contemplated e-proceedings with a real time alert. Where notices were only uploaded without email despatch or real time alert, the prescribed mode was not fully complied with. Still, because the assessees later became aware of the notices and proceedings were pending, the Court directed verification of the first-view date rather than quashing in those matters.

Conclusion: Mere upload on the E-filing portal was not valid transmission by itself. The issue was answered against the Department.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by holding that the validity of the impugned reassessment notices depended on the actual date and mode of despatch or viewing, with notices despatched on or after 1 April 2021 to be treated in accordance with the post-amendment reassessment regime and the directions in Ashish Agarwal, while digitally unsigned notices were not invalid merely for want of DSC.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 148 read with section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a notice is issued only when it is duly despatched beyond the control of the issuing authority, and in electronic communication the relevant despatch occurs when the record leaves the originator's controlled system and enters a computer resource outside that control.

---