2026 (1) TMI 621 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of notice under Section 148 ruled invalid when unsigned; reassessment proceedings quashed for lack of signature.

Validity of notice under Section 148 turned on statutory signature requirement and curability. The article explains that where a notice lacks any ... Validity of Notice issued u/s 148 as an unsigned document - validity of reassessment proceedings - whether a curable defect u/s 292B ?- HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute before us that the Notice issued u/s 148 is unsigned. It is neither digitally signed nor manually signed by the concerned Assessing Officer. Once this is the case, we find that the issue in the present Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj [2023 (1) TMI 428 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as clearly opined that the Notice issued under Section 148, having no signature affixed to it, either digitally or manually, is invalid and would not invest in the AO any further jurisdiction to proceed to re-assess the income of the Petitioner. We find that Section 282A of the I.T. Act itself stipulates that where the I.T. Act requires the Notice or other document to be issued by the Income Tax Authority, such Notice or other document shall be signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. In other words, there is a statutory mandate that a Notice issued under Section 148 has to be signed by the concerned Authority. Failure to do so, would render the Notice invalid. We are also unable to agree with Revenue that this is a defect that can be cured under Section 292B or 292BB. The Notice being unsigned, makes it invalid at its very inception and is not a curable defect. As far as the reliance on Section 292BB is concerned, we find that the said Section is also wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case.This Section does not in any way bring to life a Notice which is invalid because it is unsigned. In fact, if one were to construe Section 292BB in a way that the Revenue wants us to do, it would run counter to Section 282A which, as mentioned earlier, requires that when a Notice is to be issued by any Income Tax Authority under the IT Act, such Notice has to be signed. We, therefore, find that the reliance placed on Section 292BB is also of no assistance to the Revenue. Decided against revenue. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is neither digitally nor manually signed by the Assessing Officer, is invalid and incapable of conferring jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment. (ii) Whether the absence of signature on such Section 148 notice is a defect curable under Sections 292B or 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly where the notice bears a DIN and was served/received. (iii) Consequentially, whether reassessment, penalty orders, and demand notices passed/issued pursuant to an invalid unsigned Section 148 notice are liable to be quashed. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Validity of an unsigned notice under Section 148 and effect on jurisdiction Legal framework: The Court examined the statutory requirement under Section 282A that where the Act requires a notice or other document to be issued by an income-tax authority, such notice/document shall be signed and issued/communicated in the prescribed manner. Interpretation and reasoning: It was undisputed that the Section 148 notice was unsigned-neither digitally signed nor manually signed. The Court applied its earlier decision holding that a Section 148 notice without an affixed signature is invalid and does not vest the Assessing Officer with jurisdiction to reassess. The Revenue's explanation of bulk issuance, limitation pressure, technical glitch, and the presence of a DIN did not alter the foundational requirement that the notice must be authenticated by signature as mandated. Conclusions: An unsigned Section 148 notice is invalid at inception and does not confer jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment. Issue (ii): Whether the defect is curable under Sections 292B or 292BB; effect of service/receipt and DIN Legal framework: The Court considered Sections 292B and 292BB in relation to the signature mandate under Section 282A, and the limited deeming effect of Section 292BB concerning service-related objections. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the lack of signature is not a mere mistake/omission curable under Section 292B because the notice is invalid at its very inception. Section 292BB was held inapplicable because it addresses deemed proper service (and bars objections regarding non-service, late service, or improper service), but it does not validate a notice that is substantively invalid due to absence of signature. Construing Section 292BB to 'revive' an unsigned notice would run contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 282A requiring signature. The Court also rejected the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court decision cited, finding it factually inapposite because it was not a case of a notice lacking any signature. Conclusions: The absence of signature on a Section 148 notice is not curable under Section 292B, and Section 292BB cannot validate an unsigned notice even if it was served/received or bears a DIN. Issue (iii): Consequences for reassessment, penalties, and demands founded on an invalid notice Interpretation and reasoning: Since the foundational Section 148 notice was held invalid and jurisdictionally ineffective, all proceedings and actions taken pursuant to it lacked jurisdictional basis. Conclusions: The Court quashed the unsigned Section 148 notice and, consequentially, the reassessment order, penalty orders, and demand notices issued pursuant to that notice; no order as to costs was made.