Case Law Details
ITO Vs Sai Kumar Mateti (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of 103 civil appeals concerning reassessment notices by remitting the matters to the respective jurisdictional High Courts for fresh determination. The Court noted that these cases had earlier been segregated because they might relate to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. During the hearing, the Revenue fairly conceded that reassessment notices relating to AY 2015-16 would be barred by limitation in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The Court observed that if the cases were found to pertain to AY 2015-16, the reassessment notices would have to be declared time-barred without any further adjudication. However, if the matters related to any assessment year other than AY 2015-16, the assessees would be entitled to raise all contentions permitted under the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated April 10, 2026, and the High Courts would decide those issues accordingly. The impugned High Court judgments were set aside, and the matters were remitted for fresh determination on these terms.
In the underlying Telangana High Court case, the assessee had challenged a notice dated March 31, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment for AY 2013-14. The challenge was based on the ground that the notice did not bear either a manual or digital signature of the issuing authority. The Department contended that the notice had been duly served, the assessee had participated in the proceedings, and a subsequent notice under Section 151 had been digitally signed. It argued that the absence of a digital signature on the Section 148 notice did not render it invalid.
The High Court examined the impugned notice and found that neither the copy produced by the assessee nor the copy filed by the Department contained a manual or digital signature. Referring to Section 282A of the Income Tax Act, the Court held that notices issued under the Act are required to be signed either manually or digitally, and that this requirement is mandatory. As the Section 148 notice did not satisfy this statutory requirement, the Court held that it was bad in law and that the consequential reassessment proceedings were also invalid. The notice was accordingly quashed.
At the same time, the High Court clarified that the Department was at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the assessee in accordance with law, since the interference was confined to the technical defect of non-compliance with Section 282A(1). The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Sai Kumar Mateti Vs ITO (Telangana High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya Kant, CJI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters.
4. The instant cases were segregated through the above-mentioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC Online SC 2693.
5. There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.
6. However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent-assessees shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered accordingly.
7. Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues. As observed above, the High Courts shall firstly determine whether the matters pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16. If it is found to be so, no further adjudicatory exercise shall be required to be undertaken by the High Court, except to declare the notices as being time-barred in light of Rajeev Bansal (supra). However, if it is found that the case does not pertain to Assessment Year 201516, then all the issues shall be resolved in terms of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026.
8. Pending application(s), if any, including application(s) for substitution and impleadment/intervention stand closed.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, including application(s) for substitution and impleadment/intervention stand closed.
Author Bio
