Petition dismissed; follow procedure: file return, object to reassessment within four weeks; AO must give reasons, five-working-day hearing

Writ petition dismissed. HC held that absence of signature on reassessment notice raises issues but petitioner prematurely approached HC without following the Supreme Court's prescribed procedure; petitioner should file return of income and submit objections to the impugned notice within four weeks. Assessing Officer must furnish reasons, grant a personal hearing with at least five working days' notice, and dispose objections by a reasoned order addressing all defenses (including those raised here); if relying on any judicial decisions, a list must accompany the hearing notice. Court made no adjudication on merits, waiver or estoppel.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on grounds of being unsigned and time-barred.

Summary:
1. The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging it to be invalid due to being unsigned.
2. The Court considered the validity of the unsigned notice as a substantial defect.
3. The primary ground of challenge was the absence of a signature on the notice, deemed as a manifest illegality.
4. Petitioner had filed its return for Assessment Year 2005-2006, with an assessment order passed subsequently.
5. The impugned notice was issued post a search at the petitioner's premises, alleged to be time-barred and received without a signature.
6. Petitioner's requests to withdraw the notice and provide reasons were not met by the Department, leading to the current petition.
7. Respondent argued that the unsigned notice was not an incurable defect and provided legal defenses.
8. The Court noted the petitioner's failure to comply with the procedure outlined by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v/s. Income Tax Officer.
9. Petitioner's counsel argued that a valid notice was a jurisdictional fact, and the unsigned notice rendered it invalid.
10. A comparison was drawn with a previous case where objections were filed, highlighting the petitioner's failure to respond to the current notice.
11. Reasons for re-opening assessment were provided in the reply, emphasizing the alleged escapement of income.
12. The Court directed the petitioner to file objections within four weeks, addressing all defenses, with a provision for a personal hearing.
13. The petition was dismissed without expressing any view on the merits, with no order as to costs.

---