1990 (8) TMI 201 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds validity of unsigned demand notice under section 292B, procedural defect curable

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in a case concerning the validity of an unsigned notice of demand under section 292B. Despite the unsigned ... Assessment Order, Original Assessment Issues Involved:1. Validity of unsigned notice of demand under section 292B.2. Relevance of case law relied upon by CIT(A).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of unsigned notice of demand under section 292B:The assessee contended that the notice of demand was unsigned by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), rendering it void. The CIT(A) dismissed this argument, citing section 292B, which allows for the rectification of procedural errors if the document is in substance and effect in conformity with the law. The CIT(A) referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. R. Giridhar, where it was held that an unsigned tax calculation sheet did not invalidate the assessment order if the main order was signed. The Appellate Tribunal found that the original assessment order and demand notice were signed, though the copies given to the assessee were not. The Tribunal concluded that the unsigned notice did not invalidate the demand notice under section 292B, as the original documents were duly signed, and the procedural omission was curable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the unsigned notice did not mislead the assessee, who had accepted it and filed an appeal.2. Relevance of case law relied upon by CIT(A):The assessee argued that the CIT(A) wrongly relied on irrelevant case law. The CIT(A) had referenced the decision in CIT v. R. Giridhar, which dealt with an unsigned tax calculation sheet, to support the validity of the unsigned notice under section 292B. The Tribunal found this reliance appropriate, given the procedural nature of the defect. The assessee also cited the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Umashankar Mishra v. CIT, where an unsigned penalty notice was deemed invalid. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, noting that the unsigned notice in Umashankar Mishra was for penalty proceedings, which require specific procedural compliance, unlike a demand notice under section 156, which is a consequential action following a valid assessment order. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) correctly applied the relevant case law and upheld the decision.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming that the unsigned notice of demand was valid under section 292B and that the CIT(A) appropriately relied on relevant case law. The reassessment proceedings and the computation of income were deemed proper and valid, with no dispute from either side on these aspects. The procedural defect of the unsigned notice was curable, and the assessee was not misled or prejudiced by it.