TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the instant case before us is Blueprint Securities Ltd. Accordingly AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2017 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 4.4.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 3,35,300/-. The assessee filed and furnished before the AO various documents/evidence relating to purchase/sale of equity shares during the proceedings. However, the submissions of the assessee did not favour with the AO and as a result the entire long term capital gain of Rs. 1,09,35,000/- was added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, however the same was held to be validly done by the AO. 5. The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment as made by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 148 of the Act is invalid on three counts namely: i) Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by non-jurisdiction AO ii) Notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2017 was unsigned by referring to page no 202 which is the copy of said notice. iii) That the reasons recorded by AO, Ward-35(4), Kolkata w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... categorical denial to the statements made by the petitioner that he has not received an order dated 02.04.2022 passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act, rejecting the petitioner's submission and holding the petitioner's case to be one fit for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. Similarly, there is no substantial denial to the fact that the notice issued u/ s.148 dated 02.04.2022 was unsigned both digitally and manually and was never received by the petitioner by e-mail or for that matter even uploaded onto the system via e-mail. Further, a copy of the said unsigned notice was received by the petitioner by speed post only on 16.04.2022. 10 It is, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the notice u/s.148 being an unsigned notice, the same is invalid and consequently proceeding on the basis of an invalid notice vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings as the same is without any jurisdiction. It is further the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that proceeding on the basis of an invalid notice, which in any case, has been issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as required under the provisions of section 149(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e can be no waiver to the right of an assessee to raise this objection where the condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer is not fulfilled. To quote from the judgment it holds: In the present case there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake for, in my view, a notice without the signature lacks an essential and/or an integral and/or an inseparable vital part or requirement of a notice under section 34, a notice in terms of which is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer. It is notice with a body but without a soul. Hence, it is an invalid notice and consequently equivalent to no notice. Hence, these cases do not militate against the principle that there can be no waiver where the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction is not fulfilled. Accordingly, my opinion is that the notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to be a proper, valid and legal notice, requires to be signed by the Income-tax Officer, non-compliance of which would make it bad, and all the proceedings started thereafter would be without jurisdiction. Mr. Meyer, however, in the last resort ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he questions raised before us are extracted here under: "In the present case, there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake, for, in my view, a notice without the signature lacks an essential and/or an integral and/or an inseparable vital part or requirement of a notice under section 34, a notice in terms of which is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer. It is notice with a body but without a soul. Hence, it is an invalid notice and consequently, equivalent to no notice." 8. 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 condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction what has to be seen is that the person that purported to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ished the decision in [1966] 62 ITR 109 on the ground that the provisions of section 292B of the Act were introduced after that decision. But, that provision, in our opinion, is intended to ensure that an inconsequential technicality does not defeat justice. But the signing of a notice under section 271(1)(a) of the Act is not merely an inconsequential technicality. It is a requirement of the provisions of O.5, rule 1(3) of the CPC, which are applicable by virtue of section 282 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the provisions of section 292B of the Act would not be attracted in the instant case and the Tribunal in our opinion, was not right in holding that the notice issued under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice in the eye of law. 6. In view of our answer to the first question, our answer to the second question is that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the absence of the signature on the notice simply constituted a mistake or omission within the meaning of section 292B of the Act. 7. In view of the fact that no valid notice was served on the assessee before levying penalty, our answer to the third question is that, on the facts and in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mashankar Mishra (supra) has dealt with a similar fact situation where the first substantial question of law dealt with in that case had considered the effect of whether an unsigned notice can be considered as an irregularity or clerical mistake. The Madhya Pradesh High Court after making reference to the conclusions drawn in B.K.Gooyee (supra) by the Calcutta High Court, has taken the view, that a notice without a signature affixed on it is an invalid notice and is effectively no notice in the eyes of law. 20. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umashankar (supra) has further dealt with the second substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the absence of a signature on the notice constitutes a mistake or omission within the meaning of section 292B of the Act and while addressing itself to that question, has concluded that in the absence of a signature on the notice, the same would not constitute a mistake or omission and would not be curable under the provisions of section 292B of the Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on....