https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449434 Karnataka HC quashed a reopening notice issued under Section 148A of the IT Act, finding it legally invalid on two grounds. The notice lacked proper signature (neither physical nor digital) and prescribed only six days for response, violating the mandatory minimum seven-day period required under Section 148A(b). Following precedents from Bombay HC in Mukesh J. Ruparel case and its own decision in Begur case, the court held the notice and all subsequent proceedings including assessment orders and penalty notices were illegal and inoperative. The decision favored the assessee while preserving the department's right to pursue available legal remedies. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jun 2026 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449434 Karnataka HC quashed a reopening notice issued under Section 148A of the IT Act, finding it legally invalid on two grounds. The notice lacked proper signature (neither physical nor digital) and prescribed only six days for response, violating the mandatory minimum seven-day period required under Section 148A(b). Following precedents from Bombay HC in Mukesh J. Ruparel case and its own decision in Begur case, the court held the notice and all subsequent proceedings including assessment orders and penalty notices were illegal and inoperative. The decision favored the assessee while preserving the department's right to pursue available legal remedies. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449434