2025 (12) TMI 674 - AT - Income Tax

Unsigned Section 148 notice, premature 143(2), and proved Section 68 loan make reassessment and addition invalid

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the unsigned notice issued u/s 148 was non est in law, thereby vitiating the assumption of ... Validity of reopening of assessment unsigned notice issued u/s 148 - HELD THAT:- There is no signature on the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the same has to be treated as non-est, consequently, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. Addition u/s 68 - It is the specific case of the Assessee that the Assessee has duly repaid the loan amount and provided the details of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction before the A.O., however, the same has not been considered while framing the assessment. Considering the fact that the Assessee has not only produced cogent documents such as confirmation of accounts, ITR acknowledgment, bank statement and audited financial of the party from which loan has been taken in order to discharge the onus cast upon u/s. 68 of the Act, but also repaid the loan. Therefore, as relying case of Dazzling constructions (P.) Ltd. [2025 (3) TMI 1380 - ITAT DELHI] we delete the additions made by the A.O. which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 of the Assessee’s Appeal are allowed. Validity of reassessment proceedings as reasons were never supplied to the Assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings - As in the assessment order the A.O. mentioned that the reasons to believe were provided along with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 05/12/2019, but the Assessee denied the receipt of any such notice or reasons. Even if it is considered that the A.O. has provided the reasons to believe to the Assessee on 05/12/2019, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was already been issued prior to supply of reasons to believe recorded by the A.O. Therefore, the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act prior to supply of reasons recorded amounts to denial of the Assessee’s right to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction, which is blatant violation of the procedural safeguard enshrined in the Act which will render the re-assessment proceedings invalid. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether reassessment proceedings under section 147 for Assessment Year 2011-12, initiated on the basis of an unsigned notice issued under section 148, were valid in law. 1.2 Whether, for Assessment Year 2011-12, additions made under sections 68 and 69 towards alleged unexplained cash credits and unexplained investments were sustainable where the assessee had furnished confirmations, financials, bank statements of the lender and had repaid the loan through banking channels. 1.3 Whether reassessment proceedings under section 147 for Assessment Year 2012-13 were vitiated when the notice under section 143(2) was issued before the recorded reasons for reopening were supplied/communicated to the assessee, thereby denying an effective opportunity to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of reassessment based on unsigned notice under section 148 (A.Y. 2011-12) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The Court examined the requirement that a notice under section 148 must bear the signature (manual or digital) of the issuing officer, and relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court which held that absence of any such signature renders the notice invalid and non est, and consequently vitiates all subsequent proceedings. Interpretation and reasoning 2.2 The assessee produced the impugned notice under section 148 dated 31/03/2018, placed in the paper book, showing that it did not bear any digital or manual signature of the Assessing Officer. 2.3 The Court noted that the notice was completely unsigned and, following the Bombay High Court precedent, held that such an unsigned notice does not confer any jurisdiction on the officer to proceed with reassessment and is invalid in law. Conclusions 2.4 The notice issued under section 148 being unsigned was held to be non est and invalid; consequently, the reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 for Assessment Year 2011-12 was liable to be quashed. Ground relating to this objection was allowed. Issue 2 - Sustainability of additions under sections 68 and 69 where loan documentation and repayment established (A.Y. 2011-12) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.5 The Court proceeded on the settled requirement under section 68 that the assessee must establish identity of the creditor, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. It relied on a co-ordinate Bench decision which held that where loan transactions are supported by cogent evidence, and especially where the loans have been repaid, additions under sections 68 and related additions (including under section 69/69C) are not justified. Interpretation and reasoning 2.6 The assessee had furnished before the Assessing Officer and again before the Court: (i) confirmation of accounts of the lender, (ii) income-tax return acknowledgments of the lender, (iii) bank statements of the lender, and (iv) audited financial statements of the lender, to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction. 2.7 The assessee also produced a chart and supporting bank records showing receipt of loan and its repayment through banking channels, including repayment of Rs. 2.75 crores within the same financial year. 2.8 The Court recorded that these documents were on record and that repayment of the loan had in fact taken place, thereby discharging the primary onus cast on the assessee under section 68. 2.9 Relying on the co-ordinate Bench ruling in a similar factual situation, the Court held that: (a) no further obligation existed on the assessee to prove 'source of source' for loan transactions for the relevant year; and (b) the factum of full repayment, backed by bank trail and returns of the lender, dispelled any presumption of accommodation entry or unexplained cash credit, and rendered additions under sections 68 and 69 unsustainable. Conclusions 2.10 Since the assessee had produced cogent evidence to establish identity, creditworthiness, genuineness, and had repaid the loan through banking channels, the additions made under sections 68 (unexplained cash credit of Rs. 2.75 crores) and 69 (unexplained investment of Rs. 7,20,34,392/-) and sustained by the first appellate authority were deleted in full. Grounds on merits relating to these additions were allowed. 2.11 In view of the deletion of the additions and the setting aside of the assessment, the remaining jurisdictional and other grounds for Assessment Year 2011-12 were held to be academic and were not adjudicated. Issue 3 - Validity of reassessment where notice under section 143(2) was issued before supply of recorded reasons (A.Y. 2012-13) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.12 The Court considered the procedural requirement that, after issuance of notice under section 148, the assessee is entitled to be furnished with the reasons recorded for reopening, so as to enable the assessee to object to the assumption of jurisdiction. Issuance of notice under section 143(2) and further assessment proceedings prior to supplying such reasons undermines this safeguard and vitiates the reassessment. Interpretation and reasoning 2.13 The assessee requested the Assessing Officer, by letter dated 03/06/2019, to provide the reasons recorded for initiating proceedings under section 147. 2.14 The notice under section 143(2) was issued on 20/09/2019, i.e., prior to the date on which the Assessing Officer claimed in the assessment order to have provided the reasons (05/12/2019 along with notice under section 142(1)). 2.15 The assessee specifically denied receipt of any such reasons or notice on 05/12/2019; however, even assuming reasons were supplied on that date, they were admittedly furnished after issuance of the notice under section 143(2). 2.16 The Court held that issuing notice under section 143(2) before communicating the recorded reasons deprived the assessee of the right to challenge the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 and constituted a blatant violation of the procedural safeguards built into the Act. Conclusions 2.17 The reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2012-13, having been conducted with a notice under section 143(2) issued prior to supply of the recorded reasons, were held to be invalid. The assessment order under section 147 and the order of the first appellate authority were set aside. Ground on this jurisdictional defect was allowed. 2.18 Consequent to the setting aside of the reassessment on this ground, all other grounds on merits and on other jurisdictional issues for Assessment Year 2012-13 were treated as infructuous and were not adjudicated.