INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR V. SHOBHA DUBEY, RAIPUR

MA 6/RPR/2026

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the validity of a notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur, to Smt. Shobha Dubey for the assessment year 2016-17. The notice was found to be unsigned, leading to its invalidation by the Tribunal. The Revenue's appeal sought to challenge this decision, arguing that the notice was valid as it was issued electronically and thus did not require a physical signature. However, the Tribunal, referencing various judicial precedents and statutory provisions, upheld the initial ruling that the lack of a signature on the notice was a fundamental flaw, rendering the subsequent assessment invalid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848790 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Raipur
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Bharat Krishi Kendra Vs. Union of India, Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), NFAC, Pune, ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon, Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Question of law; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.06/RPR/2026 (Arising out of ITA No.395/RPR/2025) Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Smt. Shobha Dubey House No.143, Anand Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) PAN: ACOPA8043K ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : None (Petition filed) Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 27.03.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.06/RPR/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue arising out of the impugned order of Tribunal passed in ITA No.395/RPR/2025 for assessment years 2016-17 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 04.08.2025. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on careful perusal of the materials available on record. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Sr. DR had filed written submissions and submitted that as per internal records of the Department, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was signed. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and contents of the miscellaneous application by the Revenue a/w. impugned order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had provided relief to the assesse since the action of the Department was violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act for the fact that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act to the assessee was without signature of the issuing authority, therefore, the same was Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.06/RPR/2026 invalid, arbitrary and bad in law and hence, assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act was quashed. For the sake of completeness, the findings of the Tribunal are extracted as follows: “4. That as discernible from the aforesaid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, there is no signature of the competent authority issuing the said notice. The name and designation is mentioned as Amrit Kumar, Ward-3(1), Raipur 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. 5. 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. 143(2) 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. The Ld. Sr. DR refers to Para 14 of the said decision which reads as follows: “14. Third submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that approval granted under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 does not bear digital signature of authority, referring to note appended to approval (Annexure P-5), is concerned, the note appended says \"if digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be taken as date of document\". Submission of learned counsel for petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, is not acceptable in view of provisions of Section 282 (a) of the Act of 1961, which provides that notice or other documents to be issued for the purpose of the Act of 1961 by any income-tax authority shall be deemed to be authenticated if name and designation is provided. In approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, name, designation and office is printed. Hence, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that approval is not digitally signed is also not sustainable, more so when it bears DIN & Document Number.” 6. That before responding to the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR, it would be pertinent to extract the provision of Section 282A of the Act which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.06/RPR/2026 “282A. (1) Where this Act requires a notice or other document to be issued by any income-tax authority, such notice or other document shall be signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. (2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by any income-tax authority, shall be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon. (3) For the purposes of this section, a designated income-tax authority shall mean any income-tax authority authorised by the Board to issue, serve or give such notice or other document after authentication in the manner as provided in sub- section (2).” 7. The intention of the legislature is very clear so far as the aforesaid provision of the Act is concerned, wherein at Clause (1), it states that Where this Act requires a notice or other document to be issued by any income-tax authority, such notice or other document shall be signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. In other words, it is mandatory that any notice or document i.e. issued by the Income Tax Authority to the assessee such notice or document “shall be signed”. Suppose if the intention of the legislature was that such kind of signature is not mandatory, the word “shall” would have been replaced by “will”. However, when the word “shall” has been used, it prescribes the mandatory requirement for signature of any notice or documents whether issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form to the assessee and, therefore, the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR that since such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued in electronic form, hence no signature is required is incorrect and not in conformity with Section 282A(1) of the Act. The reference made by the Ld. Sr. DR with regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), the same deals with firstly, Section 151 of the Act and not with regard to notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act; and secondly, the Hon’ble High Court has observed that “…….. notice or other documents to be issued for the purpose of the Act of 1961 by any income-tax authority shall be deemed to be authenticated if name and designation is provided………”. In fact, the Hon’ble High Court (supra) in Para-14 of the judgment refers to Section 282A(2) of the Act. For the sake of completeness, the same is extracted as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.06/RPR/2026 “(2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by any income-tax authority, shall be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon.” 8. It is crystal clear from joint reading of Para-14 of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court (supra) and Clause (2) of Section 282A of the Act, that the Hon’ble High Court has referred deeming provision with regard to the authentication in respect of notice or other document if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon. There is no dispute that as per requirement of the provision for authentication of such notice, the presence of name and office of the designated Incomer Tax Authority, if it is printed etc. then it shall be deemed to be authenticated. However, this provision does not supersedes Clause (1) of Section 282A of the Act where it is mandatory first and foremost that the competent Income Tax Authority issuing any notice shall sign such notice or other document irrespective of such notice issued either on paper form or communicated through electronic form. Meaning thereby, signing of notice issued to the assessee is mandatory and that is not dispensed with by the deeming provision of Clause (2) to Section 282A of the Act which is only with regard to authentication of such notice. “Authentication” essentially refers to making the assessee aware that such notice has been issued from Income Tax Department and such authentication shall deemed to exist if the name and office of the competent Income Tax Authority is mentioned in the notice but that does not provide any relaxation for application of Section 282A(1) of the Act regarding mandatorily signing of notice even if such notice is sent to the assessee in electronic form. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act which has been issued to the assessee was unsigned. The revenue has not placed on record any evidence contrary to the facts on record. 10. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), NFAC, Pune WP No.9835 of 2022, dated 09.01.2023 on the similar issue has held and observed as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No.06/RPR/2026 “19. Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in B.K. Gooyee and Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd. (supra) to the facts of the present case, the signature of the Assessing Officer admittedly not having been affixed on the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the notice itself would be invalid and consequently, the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in terms of section 148 of the Act. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umashankar Mishra (supra) has dealt with a similar fact situation where the first substantial question of law dealt with in that case had considered the effect of whether an unsigned notice can be considered as an irregularity or clerical mistake. The Madhya Pradesh High Court after making reference to the conclusions drawn in B.K.Gooyee (supra) by the Calcutta High Court, has taken the view, that a notice without a signature affixed on it is an invalid notice and is effectively no notice in the eyes of law. 20. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umashankar (supra) has further dealt with the second substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the absence of a signature on the notice constitutes a mistake or omission within the 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 notice dated 02.04.2022 issued by the respondents u/s.148 of the Act, order dated 02.04.2022 under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act.” Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA No.06/RPR/2026 11. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon, 321 ITR 362 (SC) has held that issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is sine-qua-non for framing of an assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT, (2024) 167 taxmann.com 90 (Delhi) has dealt with the similar issue and held that issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is mandatory in reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case and as per the aforesaid judicial pronouncements a/w. relevant provisions of the Act, I am of the considered view that since in this case notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee was left unsigned and blank therefore it is violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence, such notice is held invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio. 13. That once the very notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is invalid, void ab initio, hence, the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act which is therefore, quashed. 14. That since the assessment itself is quashed, thereafter all other proceedings becomes non-est as per law. Since the legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee therefore the grounds on merits becomes academic only. 15. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. Regarding contention of the Ld. Sr. DR that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was signed as per internal records of the Department does not provide any remedy to the wrong already done by the Department in terms with Section 282A(1) of the Act for the fact that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act that was issued and served to the assessee and as had been produced before this Bench a copy of the same at the time of original hearing was unsigned and blank and it did not contain any signature of the issuing Printed from counselvise.com 8 MA No.06/RPR/2026 authority. The Income tax Act provisions are for determination of income tax assessment of tax payer assessee and the provisions therein pertains to governance of rights and liabilities between the Department and the assessee. The Act is not for internal functioning of the Department. What matter is whether the statute is followed or not by the Revenue authorities and the assessee. Once a notice/communication issued and ‘served on the assessee’ by the Department is left unsigned, does not contain signature of the issuing authority such notice/communication stands violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act which was precisely held by the Tribunal in the impugned order on examination of facts brought on record by the parties herein. The argument put forth by the Ld. Sr. DR tantamounts to seeking review of the order of the Tribunal which is beyond the scope and jurisdiction as per Section 254(2) of the Act. Taking guidance from the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC); (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) and (iii) CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported as 203 ITR 497 (Bom.), it is held that the adjudication of the Tribunal is confined to rectification of the mistake which are apparent from record and nothing more. Section 254(2) of the Act does not allow the Tribunal to review its own order, to revisit the facts on record, to allow for any verification of facts through long drawn process of arguments and counter arguments by Printed from counselvise.com 9 MA No.06/RPR/2026 the parties; what can only be rectified is an apparent mistake, if any, in its order and nothing further. 6. In the present case, the Tribunal had provided relief to the assessee in its wisdom by holding that since the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued and served to the assessee was left unsigned and blank therefore it was violative of Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence, such notice was held invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio, and accordingly, assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act was quashed. There is no mistake much less an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal. That the Revenue in the garb of filing the captioned miscellaneous application is only seeking review of the decision of the Tribunal which is not permissible and beyond the jurisdiction as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Hence, I hold that the miscellaneous application preferred by the Revenue being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 7. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 27th day of March, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 27th March, 2026. SB, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com 10 MA No.06/RPR/2026 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "