Reassessment u/s 147/148 quashed as unsigned notice violates s. 282A(1) and natural justice principles, denying opportunity

The ITAT Raipur allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's "reasons to believe" were founded on ITS data that was never supplied to the assessee, thereby denying reasonable opportunity and violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the reopening was held bad in law, arbitrary and void ab initio. Additionally, the notice u/s 148 was found to be unsigned and blank, infringing s. 282A(1). Such a defective and invalid notice could not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer, furnishing an independent ground to annul the reassessment.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether delay in filing the appeals, ranging from 103 to 135 days, deserved condonation in the absence of evidence of deliberate or malafide conduct by the assessee.

1.2 Whether reassessment initiated under sections 147/148, based on "reasons to believe" referring to cash deposits as per ITS details and other information, is valid when the underlying materials/documents referred to in such reasons are not supplied to the assessee.

1.3 Whether non-supply of information/materials referred to in the recorded reasons, said to be available on the Assessing Officer's record, vitiates the reassessment on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

1.4 Whether a notice issued under section 148, bearing only the name and designation of the income-tax authority but without any signature (manual or digital), is valid in law in view of section 282A(1) of the Act and whether such defect is jurisdictional.

---

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeals

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted "No" in Form 35 for communication by email and that no physical/manual service of the orders of the first appellate authority had been effected. The assessee became aware of the appellate orders only when appeal-effect orders were passed by the Assessing Officer.

2.2 There was no material on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or malafide. The Revenue also did not produce any evidence to indicate that the delay was attributable to any intentional conduct by the assessee.

2.3 Relying on cited judicial precedents, the Tribunal applied the principle that, in the absence of deliberate or contumacious conduct, delay should be condoned to enable adjudication on merits.

Conclusions

2.4 Delay of 135 days and 103 days in the respective appeals was condoned, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication.

---

Issue 2: Validity of reassessment under sections 147/148 when material forming "reasons to believe" is not supplied to the assessee (A.Y. 2011-12 - ITA No. 442/RPR/2025)

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.5 The Tribunal examined section 147 proceedings founded on "reasons to believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer, which referred to: (i) information from ICICI Bank obtained under section 133(6); and (ii) ITS details showing higher cash deposits. The Tribunal relied on the principle articulated by the High Courts that non-supply of material referred to in the recorded reasons vitiates reopening, as it violates principles of natural justice.

2.6 The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court holding that where material referred to in the reasons is not supplied, the entire reopening and consequential assessment stand vitiated. It also referred to the Bombay High Court's direction that if reasons refer to any document, letter, or report, such documents must be enclosed/supplied along with the reasons.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 The recorded reasons stated that cash deposits in the assessee's ICICI Bank account were Rs. 1,08,11,930 as per ITS details, whereas the bank statement under section 133(6) reflected cash deposits of only Rs. 22,29,300. The higher figure from ITS details was a key component of the Assessing Officer's "reasons to believe."

2.8 The Tribunal found, on the record, that: (i) the ITS details referred to in the reasons were never provided to the assessee; and (ii) the Revenue could not show that such ITS details were ever supplied for the assessee's response.

2.9 The Tribunal held that where material relied on in the recorded reasons is not furnished, the assessee is denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to object to the reopening, which undermines the very foundation of the reassessment and infringes principles of natural justice.

2.10 The Tribunal, applying the cited High Court decisions, concluded that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to supply all documents/materials referred to in the reasons to believe, and failure to do so renders the reopening bad in law.

Conclusions

2.11 The reassessment initiated under sections 147/148, without supplying the ITS details and materials forming part of the reasons to believe, was held to be bad in law, arbitrary, and void ab initio and was quashed.

2.12 Consequent proceedings and additions on merits were treated as non est and academic.

---

Issue 3: Validity of reassessment when "information available on record" forming reasons is not disclosed/supplied (A.Y. 2012-13 - ITA No. 443/RPR/2025)

Interpretation and reasoning

2.13 For this year, the recorded reasons stated that "as per the informations available on records of this office...", income had escaped assessment. However, the specific information or documents so referred to were neither described nor furnished to the assessee.

2.14 The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not supply the underlying "informations" which were in his possession and which were used against the assessee to form the reasons to believe. The Department also failed to produce any evidence that such information had been made available to the assessee for his response.

2.15 Applying the same reasoning as in Issue 2, the Tribunal held that failure to disclose and supply the material that formed the basis of reopening deprived the assessee of a meaningful opportunity to object and violated principles of natural justice.

Conclusions

2.16 The reassessment framed on the basis of undisclosed "informations available on record" was held to be arbitrary, bad in law, and void ab initio and was quashed.

2.17 The decision in the earlier appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 was held to apply mutatis mutandis, and all consequential proceedings were held non est.

---

Issue 4: Validity of an unsigned notice under section 148 in light of section 282A(1) and its impact on jurisdiction (A.Y. 2011-12 - ITA No. 444/RPR/2025)

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.18 The Tribunal reproduced section 282A, particularly:

(i) Section 282A(1): where the Act requires a notice or other document to be issued by any income-tax authority, such notice/document shall be signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form; and

(ii) Section 282A(2): every notice/document shall be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped, or otherwise written thereon.

2.19 The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision where it had held that "signed" in section 282A(1) is mandatory, and that the deeming provision in section 282A(2) regarding authentication does not override or dilute the express requirement of signature in section 282A(1).

2.20 The Tribunal also referred to a Bombay High Court decision holding that a notice under section 148 without any signature, manual or digital, is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer, and that such defect is not curable under section 292B.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.21 On facts, the impugned notice under section 148 bore the name and designation of the concerned income-tax authority but had no signature (manual or digital). The Tribunal verified this from the record and treated it as undisputed.

2.22 The Tribunal interpreted section 282A(1) to impose a mandatory requirement that any notice or document issued by an income-tax authority "shall be signed", regardless of whether it is issued in paper form or in electronic form.

2.23 It held that section 282A(2) merely lays down a deeming rule for authentication where the name and office of the designated authority is printed etc., but does not dispense with or supersede the fundamental requirement in section 282A(1) that the notice must be signed. Authentication and signature were treated as distinct requirements.

2.24 Following the Bombay High Court view, the Tribunal reasoned that an unsigned notice under section 148 is no notice in the eyes of law and cannot vest jurisdiction in the Assessing Officer to reopen or reassess. Such a defect is not a mere technical or clerical omission but a substantive jurisdictional infirmity.

Conclusions

2.25 The notice issued under section 148, being left unsigned, was held to be violative of section 282A(1) and consequently invalid, arbitrary, and void ab initio.

2.26 As the foundational notice under section 148 was invalid, the Assessing Officer lacked inherent jurisdiction to complete reassessment under section 144 read with section 147. The reassessment was therefore quashed.

2.27 With the reassessment set aside as void, all consequential proceedings were held to be non est, and the grounds on merits were treated as academic.

---