TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Multimedia India Pvt. Ltd. as well as M/s. Shipping Times India Pvt. Ltd. For the year under consideration, the Petitioner filed his Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 25th October 2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 67,13,390/-. The said Return of Income was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 20th November 2017 and the returned income was accepted. 4. On 30th March 2021, Respondent No. 1 issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the Petitioner's assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18. It was claimed that the said notice was issued with the prior approval of Respondent No. 2, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(2), Mumbai, under Section 151 of the Act. In response thereto, the Petitioner filed his Reply on 3rd April 2021 seeking the reasons recorded for reopening. After certain correspondence, the Petitioner filed his Return of Income on 28th December 2021 in response to the Notice under Section 148. On 4th February 2022, the Petitioner was provided with a copy of the reasons recorded along with a copy of the approval of Respondent No. 2. To the reasons supplied, the Petitioner filed its detailed objections on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his was evident from the fact that the sanction/ approval states that income escaping assessment is "0" (zero). If that be the case, there is no need to reopen the assessment. He further submitted that a bare perusal of the reasons recorded show that the same are vague and bereft of any material fact. There is no mention in the reasons recorded of any particular transaction, date of transaction, whether there was a loss or gain from the transaction resulting in the alleged escapement of income. The reasons merely give a figure of the alleged income escaping assessment. No rational person can decipher from the same as to what is the exact reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. He submitted that such reasons recorded do not satisfy the requirement of Section 148 of the Act, and that when such vague reasons are approved, it would mean that the approval was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of this Court in Vodafone India Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 385 (Bombay). 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, did not really dispute the fact that the approval is unsigned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other Courts on the ground that the same is completely arbitrary and does away with the jurisdictional requirement of Section 151, which cannot be countenanced. He submitted that if such a provision is allowed to stand on the statute book, it will erase the purpose of Section 151, i.e. valid satisfaction and valid approval after proper application of mind before issuing a Notice under Section 148. He submitted that a signature is mandatory, though not sufficient or enough, to demonstrate that there was an application of mind by the correct approving authority and the same cannot be dispensed with at all. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Though a number of issues have been raised for our consideration, however, we find that since the approval is unsigned, and in our opinion the same is not in accordance with law and fatal, the entire reassessment proceeding would be rendered without jurisdiction. The same is elaborated later on. In light of the same, we do not intend to deal with the other issues raised. 10. Coming to the aspect of signed approval, Section 151 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments Sri krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 87 Taxman 315/221 ITR 538 (SC)/[1996] 9 SCC 534. ... 76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148." (emphasis suppl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. An approval would fall within the meaning of the word "other document." Therefore, it is mandatory to have a signature of the approving authority on the approval. In absence of a signature, there is no valid approval before issuance of a Notice under Section 148. Consequently, the Notice under Section 148 and the corresponding reassessment proceedings would be without jurisdiction. 16. We find complete support in this regard from the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vikas Gupta v. Union of India [2022] 142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad). The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder: "14. Thus, the following questions arise for consideration:- (a) Whether an unsigned content in an electronic record said to be pushed through electronic mode at a particular point of time, can be said to be a valid satisfaction of the PCIT under section 151 for assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to issue jurisdictional notice to an assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961? (b) Whether impugned notices under section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued by the Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xing his mark is the author of it. Therefore, a notice or other document as referred in section 282A (1) of the Act, 1961 will take legal effect only after it is signed by that Income-tax Authority, whether physically or digitally. The usage of the word "shall" make it a mandatory requirement. .. Question No. (a) and (b) 27. 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Allahabad High Court. In the context of notice under Section 148, we have taken a similar view in the case of Ambernath City Hospital (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2026] 182 taxmann.com 268 (Bombay). The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder: "3. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that though it is true that the Notice issued under Section 148 was neither digitally nor manually signed, the reason for the same was that there were a huge number of Notices to be issued during this period i.e. before 31st March 2021. The last date i.e. 31st March 2021, was the date on which the Notice would have become time barred, and due to a technical glitch / error, the Notice was duly mailed and received by the Assessee. He submitted that the Notice in fact has a Document Identification Number (DIN) with a date and the same was served on the Assessee. According to Mr. Sharma, all this material would satisfy the requirements of the Notice issued under Section 148 being valid, notwithstanding the fact that it is unsigned. In this regard, Mr. Sharma placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 respondents in furtherance of notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and order dated 02.04.2022 issued under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act, would be without jurisdiction, and therefore, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we quash and set aside the noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice 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." (emphasis supplied) 18. The above judgement will apply with equal force, where the approval as contemplated under Section 151 is unsigned. 19. Having said so, it will be only fair to deal with the arguments of the Respondents. The first argument is that the approval had a valid DIN and it was pushed through the electronic system and, therefore, the same is valid. Presence of a valid DIN does not dispense with the requirement of having a valid signature as required under Section 282A(1) of the Act. There are two different facets i.e., having a valid DIN and having a valid signature. One cannot dispense with the requirement of the other. A similar argument was raised by the Revenue before us in the case of Ambernath (supra) in paragraph 3 thereof and the same was not accepted by this Court. Therefore, we do not accept this argument of the Department. 20. The second argument of the Department is concerning Section 282A(2) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e digital era, appreciating the statutory mandate of the signature as provided in Section 282A(1) and consequently setting aside the Notice under Section 148 and the approval / sanction for the same, in the absence of the signature. Moreover, in paragraph 11 the Delhi High Court has held that "11. Since the name and the designation of the issuing officer has been mentioned, according to us, no signature is necessary. In the present era, when computer generated notice(s) and order(s) are being issued, the inscription of name(s) and the designation(s) is enough, as no digital document can bear the signature." (emphasis supplied) 22. With respect we are unable to agree with the aforesaid findings. There are several electronic documents which bear a digital signature. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 in fact is digitally signed, as is evident from Page 81 of the Paper Book. Further, the Department has issued various instructions as guidelines for a digital or a manual signature. Therefore, the requirement of having a valid signature, either manual or digital, as per the provisions of Section 282A(1), is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. As al....