TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds of appeal contended before the CIT(A) that the notice of demand accompanying the order of assessment was not signed by the ITO and as such the same was void. The assessee also challenged the initiation of the proceedings under section 147. The other grounds of appeal were taken on merits also. 4. The CIT(A) heard the assessee and sustained the action of the ITO under section 147(b) and the inclusion of Rs. 28,859 was sustained. 5. The CIT(A) dealt also with the point raised by the assessee that the notice of demand was unsigned and, therefore, the order was invalid. The assessee relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Umashankar Mishra v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 330 and also decided by the Hon'ble Assam High Court in Murlidhar Jalan v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 80. The CIT(A) found that the decision in the case of Murlidhar Jalan was not relevant to the case because section 292B was not on the statute at that time. In respect of the decision in the case of Umashankar Mishra relied on by the assessee, the CIT(A) stated that in that Madhya Pradesh case, penalty notice was unsigned and the Hon'ble High Court was of the opinion that this unsigned pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kept by the department, on which the assessee has no control and no comment was given on those materials placed by the learned Departmental Representative before us. But the assessee's learned counsel reiterates his stand that not only the demand notice but also the assessee order given to the assessee have not been signed. It is, therefore, urged that in the circumstances, the notice was void and cannot be acted upon. It may be mentioned here that before the CIT(A), the assessee had raised submissions in respect of the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 as well as the addition etc., on merits. The CIT(A) has discussed above did not accept the contentions of the assessee in this respect also. But before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has taken only the above ground that the notice of demand was not signed and that the case law relied on by the CIT(A) was not applicable. It is seen that the reassessment was completed by the ITO under section 143(3) read with section 147(b). The CIT(A) did not accept the point of appeal by the assessee regarding the initiation of proceedings nor the addition of the amount made. In other words, the initiation of reassessment proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant section. There are various authorities on this point which we need not mention here as this is a settled principle of law. Unless a valid notice under section 148 is issued, the ITO would not have jurisdiction to start the reassessment proceedings but before the assessment order is passed, notice under section 148 should be served on the assessee. For this proposition, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163/33 Taxman 229. But issuance of notice under section 156 is only consequential action statutorily required to be taken by the ITO, intimating the assessee about the liability which has been determined. Of course, unless a valid notice is issued and served on the assessee, the assessee could not be treated as defaulter and recovery proceedings would not lie. 9. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision in the case of R.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal.), in which it was held that the irregularity of serving a notice under section 34 of the Old Act which did not contain the signature of the ITO was not valid and cannot be waived by the assessee or his counsel as the irregu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee has waived the irregularity or otherwise or such notice. As mentioned above, the learned Departmental Representative has stressed the point that the assessment order as well as the computation of the tax and also the notice of demand under section 156 were signed by the assessing officer concerned at that time, copies of which have been given in the paper-book, as stated earlier. It thus can be seen that the assessment order and the notice of demand supplied to the assessee are copy of the original assessment order and copy of the original demand notice under section 156. The fact that the original assessment order and the original notice of demand u/s 156 having been signed as indicated above has not been challenged before us. In the present case, a demand of Rs. 68,994 appears to have been raised as payable by the assessee as per demand notice. Obviously, the ITO must have supplied the challans for depositing of the money. The Bench raised a query whether challan supplied to the assessee was also unsigned. But the Bench was informed that information cannot be given as payment must have been made separately. Ordinarily, challans must have been signed and appropriate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us, it is seen that the original assessment order, original demand notice etc., were signed by the assessing officer but the copies of the assessment order and the demand notice supplied to the assessee with challan were not signed. Thus, it can be said that issue of demand notice and copy of assessment order formed part of the procedural matter of communicating the assessee, the amount payable by him or refundable to him, as the case may be and such omission in signing copy of the demand notice meant for the assessee would certainly attract the provisions of section 292B of the Act as the issue of the said notice etc., is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. 12. In the present case, there has been a valid assessment order under the Act after the CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal and then notice has to be issued under section 156 as a consequence thereof For completion of reassessment, there is a time limit prescribed but there is no time prescribed for service of demand notice. In the case of Misri Bai v. ITO [1964] 51 ITR 487 the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that the provisions for service of a proper notice ....