IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1239/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Konda Devasenamma, Ward – 5(1)(1), # 518, CMH Road, Bengaluru Indiranagar – 560 038.

Bangalore – 560 095.

PAN – AAKPW 6634 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.2603/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Konda Devasenamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, # 518, CMH Road, Ward – 5(1)(1), Indiranagar – 560 038. Bengaluru.

Bangalore – 560 095.

PAN – AAKPW 6634 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S Annamalai, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue.

The appeals are directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), Bangalore, for the assessment year 2016-17.

First, we take up assessee’s appeal bearing ITA No.

603/Bang/2024.

2. The assessee, vide letter dated 28.12.2024, has raised additional grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the assessment. The assessee, inter-alia, contends that the notice issued under section 143(2)

of the Act was not signed and therefore is invalid in law.

3. We have considered the submission. The additional ground raised goes to the root of the matter. It questions the very validity of the assessment proceedings on the basis of an unsigned statutory notice. The issue is a pure question of law. It does not require fresh investigation of facts because the material notice is already on record.

3.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [229 ITR 383] has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below, and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, even though such question was not raised earlier before the lower authorities. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee. This additional ground is accordingly taken up for adjudication along with the other grounds in the appeal.

3.2 The Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 19.07.2017 is not valid. The notice is neither signed manually nor digitally. Therefore, it is void and without jurisdiction. It was argued that section 282A(1) of the Act requires every notice to be signed by the Income Tax Authority. The assessee placed reliance on Notification No. 2/2016 dated 03.02.2016 dealing with paperless assessment proceedings. This notification requires the Assessing Officer to attach a scanned copy of the notice under section 143(2) or 142(1) of the Act bearing his or her signature in PDF format to the email being sent to the assessee. Reliance was also placed on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018 dated 12.02.2018 which mandates that all departmental orders and notices through the e-proceedings facility must be digitally signed by the Assessing Officer.

3.3 The assessee relied on several judicial precedents. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Begur Sinnappa Venkatesh v. ITO in WP 20807 of 2023 dated 9-11-2023 held that when the notice is not digitally or manually signed it is invalid. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Vikas Gupta v. UOI 142 448 ITR 1 held that the words “shall be signed” in section 282A are mandatory. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Prakash Krishnatvar Bhardwaj v. ITO reported in 451 ITR 27 held that unsigned notices are invalid. The ITAT Mumbai in Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 157 taxmann.com 705 also quashed an assessment where the notice was unsigned. The assessee further relied on the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in Yashoda Electricals v. ACIT in ITA No.1175/Bang/2016 where it was held that section 292B cannot cure a defect if the jurisdictional notice itself is invalid.

4. On t