TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h March 2022 passed under Section 147 of the I.T. Act. In addition thereto, the Penalty Order dated 22nd September 2022 and the Notice of Demand of the very same date issued under Section 156 of the I.T. Act, are also challenged. Additionally, the Order dated 23rd September 2022 passed under Section 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act and the Notice of Demand of the very same date are also impugned. The only ground of challenge is that the Notice issued under Section 148 is an unsigned document, and therefore, is an invalid Notice. If the Notice itself is invalid, all proceedings and actions taken pursuant to the said Notice, also have to go, is the argument of the Petitioner. 2. In support of the proposition that the Notice issued under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs in the above Writ Petition. We have also gone through the Notice issued under Section 148, as well as the Affidavit in Reply filed by the Revenue. It is not in dispute before us that the Notice issued under Section 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 (Supra). This Court, after examining the law on the subject, has 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 Assessing Officer any further jurisdic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the income of the petitioner. Consequently, the notice dated 02.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act issued to the petitioner being invalid and sought to be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 with which we are concerned in this petition, any steps taken by the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission was that the speed post communication with notice, later, was of a copy; the proper email communication with a scanned copy of the intimation, in the relevant form was also received later. It was this argument of the Petitioner that was negated by the Delhi High Court in paragraph 52 and 53 of the decision. We find that the reliance placed on this decision of the Delhi High Court is wholly misplaced, as that was not a case where there was no signature on the Notice issued under Section 148. 7. This apart, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny 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. Hence, we find no merit in this argument either. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the above Petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus: "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certi....