DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi Light House (ITAT Delhi)
Assessment Quashed Entirely—Notices u/s 148A(b), 148A(d) & 148 Invalid for Want of Digital/Manual Signature; Revenue Appeal Infructuous
Assessee, a partnership firm providing tent & lighting services, faced reassessment on allegation of bogus purchases of ₹68.78 lakh from Zenith Enterprises (entry provider Ankit Karanwal) & under-reported receipts of ₹1.47 crore based on Form 26AS mismatch. AO made additions totalling ₹72,21,918 u/s 69C & difference in receipts. CIT(A) deleted the additions. Revenue appealed; Assessee filed Cross Objection.
Assessee’s CO challenged the validity of reassessment itself, alleging that notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) & notice u/s 148 were unsigned—neither digitally nor manually—rendering them null. The impugned notices were examined by Tribunal & found to contain no signature of any AO.
Tribunal relied on Bombay HC – Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj (2023) 150 taxmann.com 60, which held that an unsigned notice u/s 148A(b)/148 is invalid & without jurisdiction, & all subsequent proceedings automatically fall.
Accordingly:
- Unsigned notices = no valid initiation of reassessment
- Therefore, entire s.147 order is void ab initio
- Cross Objection allowed; assessment quashed
- Revenue’s appeal automatically becomes infructuous
Delay of 234 days in filing CO was also condoned, considering bona fide reasons.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
