* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 07 January 2025

Judgment pronounced on: 15 January 2025

+ W.P.(C) 2830/2022

ROHIT KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mahir Aggarwal, Mr. Uma Shankar and Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54 (1), DELHI

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC with Ms. Zehra Khan, JSC, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Mr. Kanishk Aggarwal, Ms. Anauntta Shankar and Mr. Ruchir Joshi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The writ petitioner seeks to question the invocation of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19611 by the respondents in relation to Assessment Year2 2015-16. The challenge appears to have been originally mounted basis the digital signing of the notice under Section 148 on 09 April 2021 although it bore a date of 31 March 2021. The petitioner appears to have originally contended that since the notice would be deemed to have been issued on 09 April 2021, it would be the reassessment regime as introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2021 which would have been applicable. This according to the writ petitioner would have required the respondents to follow the procedure as prescribed by Section 148A of the Act which had come to be introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. It is these aspects which came to be noticed by the Court originally when it entertained the writ petition on 15 February 2022 and led to the passing of an interim order providing that while it would be open for the Assessing Officer3 to frame an order of assessment, the same would not be given effect to.

2. When the matter was heard finally by us, Mr. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, had contended that since the notice had been digitally signed on 09 April 2021, it would be that date which would be liable to be viewed as the date of issuance of notice. It was his contention that this issue in any case stands conclusively settled in light of the judgment of the Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors4 and where the Court had held as follows:-

“25.24. With respect to impugned notices falling in category "A", there is an additional factor which evidence that the said notices were admittedly not issued on March 31, 2021. The said notices were digitally signed on April 1, 2021, or thereafter. The note appearing at the foot of each notice clearly declares that the date of the affixation of digital signature shall be treated as the date of the notice. The note reads "if digitally signed, the date of signature may be taken as date of document". In these notices therefore, the date of the notice itself is determined by the date of affixation of digital signature and not the date of generation. The contention of the Department that, the said note appearing at the footer of the notice has no basis in law and should be ignored by this court, cannot be accepted. The Department cannot deny the contents of its own notice and it is bound by the said contents.

25.25. In this regard it will also be useful to refer to para 2.10.6 of the Income Tax Business Application, User Assessment Manual, Version 1.9, August 2020, as referred to by the Department in its counter-affidavit in W. P. (C) No. 13814 of 2021. The said instruction draws the attention of the Income-tax Officer to the consequence of the date of digital signature and date of generation of document being different, if the digital signatures are affixed subsequently. Para 2.10.6 reads as under :

"ii. Generate and Digitally sign later (Applicable for single as well as bulk generation) :

Click generate and digitally sign later. In this case, document will be generated successfully immediately.

To sign the document later, go to 'view/edit despatch register' screen. Select the status as 'pending for signing' and search.

Select the document and click sign do