Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED DCIT v. Taureg Properties & Security Services Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3382 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. Asstt. CIT 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1666 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED Commissioner of Income-tax & Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1447 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT & Ors. v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2968 (SC)
REFERRED GMR Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0995 (Bang-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC)
REFERRED Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT & Ors. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0754 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT & Anr. v. Foramer France 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0933 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 2001 TaxPub(DT) 0896 (SC)
REFERRED Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT & Anr. 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1334 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Birla Vxl Ltd. v. Assistant CIT 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0451 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Vxl India Ltd. v. Assistant CIT 1995 TaxPub(DT) 1223 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. E.I.D. Parry Ltd. 1995 TaxPub(DT) 1130 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. CIT 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1285 (SC)
REFERRED H.H. Maharaja Shri Lokendra Singhji v. CIT 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1137 (MP-HC)
REFERRED Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Kaviraj Mahipat Singh 1987 TaxPub(DT) 0328 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED P.K. Mohammed (P) Ltd. v. CIT 1986 TaxPub(DT) 1159 (Ker-HC)
REFERRED Punjab Produce & Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 TaxPub(DT) 0400 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Yeshwant Talkies v. CIT 1986 TaxPub(DT) 0334 (MP-HC)
REFERRED Bhagwandas Jain v. CIT 1985 TaxPub(DT) 1306 (MP-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Hackbridge Hewittic & Easun Ltd. 1985 TaxPub(DT) 1116 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED Dinkarrai Anantrai Mankad v. Income Tax Officer 1985 TaxPub(DT) 0995 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Rajan Silk v. Income Tax Officer 1985 TaxPub(DT) 0508 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Aggarwal Textile Mills 1985 TaxPub(DT) 0412 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Dr. H. Habicht & Anr. v. Makhija & Anr. 1985 TaxPub(DT) 0322 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Ramesh Chandrasen Ashar & Anr. v. K.M. Barshiwala, Addl. First Asst. Ced & Anr. 1984 TaxPub(DT) 1090 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Smt. Savitri Devi L/H of Nemi Chand Jain & Anr. 1983 TaxPub(DT) 0699 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Bhavnagar Chemical Works Ltd. 1983 TaxPub(DT) 0389 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED H. Noronha v. Income Tax Officer 1982 TaxPub(DT) 0714 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED Yamuna Syndicate Ltd. v. Surtax Officer, Companies Ward, Tohtak 1982 TaxPub(DT) 0223 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Anil Starch Products Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1982 TaxPub(DT) 0185 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Surat District Co-Operative Purchase and Sale Union Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1981 TaxPub(DT) 0523 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Brig. B. Lall v. Wealth Tax Officer 1981 TaxPub(DT) 0519 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED Atul Products Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1980 TaxPub(DT) 0986 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1081 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Ratanlal Lallubhai 1978 TaxPub(DT) 0602 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Kasturbhai Lalbhai v. R.K. Malhotra, Income Tax Officer 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0174 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh 1965 TaxPub(DT) 0214 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0783 (Bang-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147

As there was no signature of AO who issued notice under section 148, therefore, it had to be construed that no notice was issued by AO to assessee. Further, issuance of notice without affixing signature, could not be said to be an omission, which was sought to be covered by the provisions of section 292B. Therefore, assessment framed on the basis of unsigned notice under section 148 was bad in law.

Assessment - Validity - Section 148 notice not signed by AO -

Assessee challenged validity of reassessment framed by AO on the ground that notice issued under section 148 of the Act was typed on a plain paper and it was not signed by AO. Revenue took plea of section 292B.Held: Notice issued under section 148 was manual notice and not a digital document. The digital document only does not require signature. A manual notice, under section 148 is required to be, dated and duly signed by the Officer who is issuing the same. A notice or an order without having signature of the person who issued such notice loses its relevance and importance and is to be treated as invalid. An order or notice without signature is not an order for execution or implementation. In the instant case, as there was no signature of AO who issued notice under section 148, therefore, it had to be construed that no notice was issued by AO to assessee. Further, issuance of notice without affixing signature, could not be said to be an omission, which was sought to be covered by the provisions of section 292B. If such a course is permitted to be followed, then that would amount to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, assessment framed on the basis of unsigned notice under section 148 was bad in law.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2007-08



IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT