Ediga Tayanna Gouda Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Unsigned Approval U/s 151 Invalid – ITAT Quashes Reassessment; Delay Condoned in Interest of Justice
The Bangalore ITAT in the case of Ediga Tayanna Gouda dealt with multiple appeals involving reassessment and procedural lapses. The Tribunal first addressed a delay of 363 days in filing appeals before it and also delay before CIT(A). It held that the delay was sufficiently explained—primarily due to notices and appellate orders being sent to the tax consultant’s email instead of the assessee’s registered email, coupled with the assessee’s age and health issues. Relying on principles of substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals.
On merits, the Tribunal examined the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148, where approval u/s 151 is a jurisdictional requirement. The assessee demonstrated (through RTI documents) that the approval granted by the JCIT was neither digitally nor physically signed. The Revenue argued that mention of name/designation and generation through ITBA sufficed under section 282A.
Rejecting this contention, the Tribunal held that:
- Signature is mandatory under section 282A(1); mere printing of name/designation cannot substitute it.
- Approval u/s 151 must reflect application of mind and authentication by signature.
- An unsigned approval is not a curable defect, but a fundamental illegality.
Relying on judicial precedents including jurisdictional High Court rulings, the Tribunal concluded that absence of signature vitiates the approval itself, thereby invalidating the notice u/s 148 and entire reassessment proceedings.
Accordingly, the reassessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 were held to be void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
