TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of search action undertaken u/s 132 of the Act on one Shri Manoj Kumar Singh and related entities. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that simultaneously, on the same date notices were issued to both the assessee and the notices allegedly found to be not complied with therefore were similarly dated. That his arguments against the levy of penalty in both the cases was also the same. 3. Ld. DR fairly agreed with the same. 4. In the light of the same both the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed off by this common consolidated order 5. We shall be dealing with the appeal in ITA No. 4696/ D/ 24 in the case of Ramesh Gandhi and our decision rendered therein will apply pari passu to the other appeal in ITA No. 4701/ D/24 in the case of Rajesh Gandhi. ITA No. 4696/ D/ 24 Ramesh Gandhi - A.Y 21-22 6. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- "1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming a penalty of Rs. 70,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act though the complete details were on the record of the AO, and the impugned proceedings were illegal ab initio as no cause of action existed to assume jurisdiction to pass the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppa Venkatesh v. ITO [W.P.No.20807 of 2023], wherein it is held as under: "The petitioner has impugned the notice dated 17-3-2022 [Annexure-A] issued by the first respondent under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short, the 'IT Act'], the subsequent adjudication order dated 30-3-2022 under section 148A(d) of the IT Act [Annexure-Al], the notice dated 31-3-2022 under section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-A2], the assessment order dated 24-2-2023 under section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act [Annexure-A3] and the consequential penalty orders and demand notices dated 24-8-2022 and 7-7-2023 [Annexures-A4, A5 and A6]. 2. The petitioner's primary grievance is with the notice under section 148A(b) of the IT Act and based on this grievance, it is contended that all further proceedings must fail. Sri Ravishankar S V, the learned counsel for the petitioner, canvasses that the first respondent has caused the aforesaid notice under section 148A(b) of the IT Act without digital signature and in view of the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. Income-tax Officer, reported in [2023] 451 ITR 27 [Bombay], all further proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice. 6. However, Sri M. Dilip, submits that the authorities must be reserved with liberty to issue fresh notice if it could be permissible given the provisions of Section 149 of the IT Act. In rejoinder, Sri Ravishankar S V, submits that in the event the writ petition is being disposed of on this limited ground, this Court may observe that any further proceedings shall be initiated in the light of the defence that is canvassed in this petition. 7. The rival submissions are considered and this Court must opine that with the authorities being unable to dispute that the notice under section 148A(b) of the IT Act is not either digitally or manually signed and with the proposition enunciated by the High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid decision being applicable on all fours to this case, the petition must be disposed of on the ground that the first respondent could not have continued the proceedings based on 148A(b) notice dated 17-3-2022. However, the authorities must be reserved with liberty, subject to all just exceptions in law, to initiate further proceedings. Hence, the following ORDER The petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 17-3-2022 issued by the first resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the Ld. DR was directed to produce the assessment records. 21. On a perusal of the assessment records, I find that as stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 is neither digitally signed or manually signed. For the sake of clarity, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 (available in the assessment folder, Page 3) is culled out as under: Although at the first blush the absence of the manual/digital signature of the A.O in the copy of the notice dated 27.03.2018 appeared to be saved by the provisions of Section 292B of the Act but as pointed out by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, the absence of the signature affixed on the aforesaid notice, digitally or manually, therein, rendered the same as invalid and divested the A.O of any further jurisdiction to proceed and assess the income of the assessee, My aforesaid conviction is fortified by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO (2023) 451 ITR 27 (Bom.), wherein involving identical facts, the Hon'ble High Court had observed that as the notice u/s. 148 dated 02.04.2022 as was there before them did not have th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall be signed by that authority. The word "and" has been used in sub-Section (1), in conjunctive sense, meaning thereby that such notice or other document has first to be signed by the authority and thereafter it may be issued either in paper form or may be communicated in electronic form by that authority. In the present set of facts, it is the admitted case of the respondents that the PCIT has not recorded satisfaction under his signature prior to the issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 28. Section 282A (1) of the Act, 1961 specifically provides that a notice or other documents issued by any Income Tax Authority shall be signed by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. Section 151 of the Act, 1961 specifically provides recording of satisfaction by the Prescribed Authority, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Unless such satisfaction is recorded, the Assessing Officer could not get jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148. A satisfaction, to be a valid satisfaction under section 151 of the Act, 1961, ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnature of the Income tax officer. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that for a proper notice u/s.34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 the signature of the Income tax officer is a condition precedent in the exercise of jurisdiction by him. On a reference before the Hon'ble High Court u/s. 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, the Hon'ble High Court had observed that though non-signing in the notice might be a case of inadvertent omission, but the same is not a mere irregularity that can be cured. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: "The notice under section 34 of the Act is not an executive document, directing something to be done or not to be done. It might be true that everybody understood the notice alright. One might be struck also by the facts that prior sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax was obtained and that the assessee was not misled by the notice; and the non-signing might be a case of inadvertent omission. Still in my view, it is not a mere irregularity that can be cured. Non-signing of a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not come within the formula of an obvious cleri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12-2-2018 with respect to conduct of assessment proceedings in scrutiny cases through 'e-proceedings'. Therein apart from other procedural aspects, the Board once again specifically mentioned the requirement of digital signatures by the Assessing Officer on orders/notices/communications before they are issued to the assessee. [Para 10] * Signing of an assessment order by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory requirement and not merely a procedural formality. Unless, the order is signed it cannot be said to be complete. Once the order is signed digitally or manually, as required, the order is complete and the date of signature on the order shall be the date of passing of the order. The provisions from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) explaining the requirement of signing the judgments. Order-XX Rule-3 of CPC mandates that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge at the time of pronouncing it and when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered. The signing of an order is thus, not a mere formality, it is a mandatory requirement. It is not a curable procedural defect that can be fixed by signing the order after service of the same on the assessee. If an un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] * Lastly, the revenue has tried to take shelter under section 292B. The said section cures the procedural defects or omissions. The section does not grant immunity from non-compliance of statutory provisions. Non-signing of an assessment order is not a procedural flaw that can be cured subsequently. The order is complete only when it is signed and released. The date on which the order is signed by the Assessing Officer is the date of order. If revenue's contention is accepted and the Assessing Officer is allowed to sign the assessment order now considering it to be procedural deficiency, still the order would suffer from the defect of limitation and would be without jurisdiction. [Para 17] * In facts of the case and documents on record, it is held that the unsigned impugned assessment order served on the assessee invalid and quash the same. [Para 19] (v) Vikas Gupta Vs Union (2022] 142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad) The first and foremost condition under sub-section (1) of section 282A is that notice or other document to be issued by any Income-tax Authority shall be signed by that authority. The word "and" has been used in sub-section (1), in conjunctive sense, meaning ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, it has to be construed that no notice was issued by the AO to the assessee and the assessee was continuously objecting for the same. It is also a fact that from the assessment order it is found that it is an ex parte order u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act without participation of the assessee and the provisions of section 292BB of the Act is of no help to the assessee, which suggests that if the assessee cooperated in the proceedings of assessment, the assessee cannot raise objections in further proceedings. Further, in our opinion, service of valid notice is a pre-condition to assume jurisdiction by the AO. Non-signing of a notice is not a clerical mistake and there cannot be any waiver by the assessee of an irregularity of an unsigned notice. In our view, section 282 of the Act provides that a notice under the Act may be served on the person's name therein as if it were a summons issued by a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 5, CPC, provides that every summons shall be signed by the judge or such officer, as he appoints. In view of this provision, the notice issued u/s. 148 should have been signed by the AO and omission to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not helpful to an assessee, the reasons mentioned before make the signature of the Income-tax Officer on the notice under section 34 an essential and/or integral and/or inseparable vital part or requirement of such a notice and, consequently, the notice under section 34 must be signed by the Income-tax Officer and it must bear the signature of the Income-tax Officer when it is served as if it were a summons. In my opinion, if this conclusion is correct, as it is, it necessarily follows that the notice sent by post must likewise be signed and bear the signature of the Income-tax Officer. (ix) CIT Vs Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 50 (Calcutta) The service of a valid notice, as already noticed, is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. The existence of a valid notice is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact. The question, therefore, is not to be looked at from the perspective that the decision to Issue notice was by an authority competent in that behalf under the Act and, therefore, submitting to his jurisdiction without objection, the inference of waiver arises. The question being one of jurisdiction, to be more specific the cond....