Unsigned notice u/s.148 without issuing authority's signature violates mandatory Section 282A(1), rendering it void ab initio and depriving jurisdiction for reassessment, regardless of electronic mode or name/designation presence.

आदेश/ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 14.10.2024 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, it is noted that there is delay of 396 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. That explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same, the assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated 02.02.2026 and medical certificates. The relevant contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows:

3. I have carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and condonation petition as well as medical certificates and heard the submissions of the parties herein. In my considered view, there is no deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee, if any, for late filing of this appeal. Nothing has been placed on record by the Department suggesting that the delay caused by the assessee was deliberate. Considering the ratio laid down in the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, I hereby condone the delay of 396 days and proceed to hear the matter on merits.

4. The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee through the Ground of appeal No.2 that though assessment has been completed u/s.147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), however, no valid notice u/s.148 of the Act has been served on the assessee for the fact that the said notice u/s.148 of the Act is without any signature of the issuing authority, hence, violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act. Copy of the said notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, dated 24.03.2018 is annexed at Page 1 of the paper book and the same is made part of this order:

5. That as clearly evident from the aforesaid notice u/s.148 of the Act, there is no signature of the competent authority issuing the said notice. The name and designation is mentioned as Rajendran Nair, Ward Jagdalpur but neither there is any signature nor there is any seal of the jurisdictional officer and both the places of signature as well as seal in the aforesaid notice are left blank.

6. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR could not place on record any evidence refuting these facts on record. However, she submitted that since the notice has been sent through electronic form, therefore, there was no requirement for such signature of the issuing authority and even without such signature, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was valid. The Ld. Sr. DR has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharat Krishi Kendra Vs. Union of India, WPT No.27 of 2022, dated 15.03.2022.

7. I find that in an absolutely similar and identical matter in the reported decision of Smt. Shobha Duvey Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.), 2025 (8) TMI 1708-ITAT, Raipur, the Tribunal had held and observed that once notice/communication issued to the assessee by the Department was left unsigned and blank, it is therefore violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence, such notice/communication is invalid, arbitrary and void ab i