2026:BHC-AS:1329-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2713 OF 2024 Ambernath City Hospital Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus The Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Bharat Raichandani a/w Ms.Bhagrati Sahu i/b M/s.UBR Legal Advocates, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

Date:

MOHITE 2026.01.13

19:13:55 +0530 FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

DATE: JANUARY 6, 2026 P. C.

1. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking to challenge the Notice dated 31^st March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the I.T.Act”) as well as the subsequent ex-parte Assessment Order dated 19^th March 2022 passed under Section 147 of the I.T. Act. In addition thereto, the Penalty Order dated 22^nd 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 23^rd 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 148 is invalid because it is unsigned, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs. Income Tax Officer, ward 2(1) and Ors. [Writ Petition No.9835 of 2022 decided on 9^th January 2023].

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 31^st March 2021. The last date i.e. 31^st 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 the case of Sonia Gandhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-52(1) [2018] 97 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi). Consequently, he submitted that there was no merit in the above Petition and the same ought to be dismissed.

4. We have perused the papers and proceedings 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 jurisdiction to proceed to re-assess the income of the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereunder:

“19. Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in B.K. Gooyee and Aparna Agency (P) Ltd. (