Section 148 reopening notice invalid without AO's signature violates Section 282A(1) assessment order quashed

ITAT Raipur held that a reopening notice u/s 148 without the AO's manual or digital signature is invalid and non-est in law, violating Section 282A(1). The absence of signature deprived the AO of jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment. The tribunal relied on Bombay HC and Allahabad HC precedents establishing that signing notices is mandatory, not a ministerial formality. The requirement ensures proper authentication and cannot be dispensed with. Consequently, the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 lacked valid foundation and was quashed in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A).
2. Validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Justification for confirming cash deposits as unexplained money.
4. Justification for confirming addition of undisclosed interest income.
5. Justification for confirming addition of undisclosed salary income.
6. Validity of the impugned order on legal and factual grounds.
7. Right to amend grounds of appeal.

Summary:

1. Ex-parte Dismissal of the Appeal by the CIT(A):
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the request for supply of documents necessary for preparing submissions. Despite visiting the A.O's office multiple times, the documents were not provided, causing hardship in presenting the case.

2. Validity of Initiation of Re-assessment Proceedings under Section 147:
The A.O initiated proceedings under Section 147 based on information that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 11 lacs and earned salary income of Rs. 5,10,222/- but failed to file a return. The assessee contended that the A.O did not have a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, the Tribunal found that the A.O had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, thus justifying the initiation of proceedings under Section 147.

3. Justification for Confirming Cash Deposits as Unexplained Money:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained money, rejecting the assessee's claim that the deposits were made from her husband's proprietary concern. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the absence of supporting evidence for the claim.

4. Justification for Confirming Addition of Undisclosed Interest Income:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,393/- as undisclosed interest income. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the primary focus was on the procedural validity of the assessment.

5. Justification for Confirming Addition of Undisclosed Salary Income:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,10,222/- as undisclosed salary income, ignoring deductions under Chapter VI-A and TDS. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the lack of a return of income filed by the assessee.

6. Validity of the Impugned Order on Legal and Factual Grounds:
The Tribunal found that the notice issued under Section 148 was neither digitally nor manually signed, rendering it invalid and divesting the A.O of jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment. This procedural defect led to the quashing of the assessment order.

7. Right to Amend Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant reserved the right to amend the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order due to the invalidity of the notice under Section 148, which was not signed either digitally or manually. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on procedural grounds without addressing the merits of the case.

---