Asro Arcade Vs ITO (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The matter arose from reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 18.03.2026 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, principally contending that the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 was invalid as it did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer. The petitioner relied upon Section 282A and submitted that an unsigned notice could not constitute a valid foundation for reassessment proceedings. The petitioner therefore contended that the assessment order was void and without jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court considered the notice and the rival submissions. The Department submitted that Section 282A(2) provides for deemed authentication where the name and office of the designated income-tax authority are printed, stamped or otherwise written on the notice. The Department pointed out that the notice contained the name and designation of the issuing officer, namely Prabal Gupta, WARD 44(1), Delhi. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not raised the objection regarding the alleged irregularity before the Assessing Officer and was seeking to raise it for the first time before the High Court after the assessment order had been passed.
The petitioner, in rejoinder, relied upon Umashankar Mishra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1982] 11 Taxman 75 (MP) and Narayana Chetty v. Income-Tax Officer [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC).
The High Court examined the notice and observed that it contained the name and designation of the issuing authority. It held that the notice fell within Section 282A(2), which provides that a notice or other document is deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon.
The High Court further observed that, since the name and designation of the issuing officer were mentioned, a signature was not necessary. It considered this particularly in the context of computer-generated notices and orders, observing that a digital document cannot bear a conventional signature. It noted that a digital signature may be a proper course, but Section 282A(2) does not require the issuing authority to affix a digital signature.
The High Court also distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioner, observing that those decisions were from periods when computers and electronically generated documents were not in vogue. It stated that law, commerce and procedures are evolving and concluded that the judgments from 1982 and 1991 could not guide the issue in the present digital era.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The High Court also directed that, while considering the matter before the Appellate Authority, the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition from 08.04.2026 to 16.04.2026 should be considered in accordance with law.
The High Court decision is also available on TaxGuru as Asro Arcade Vs ITO (Delhi High Court).
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court considered the exemption application, heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and examined the materials on record.
The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. It therefore dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The exemption application was allowed and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
The Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court’s decision. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition remained undisturbed. The Supreme Court’s order does not set aside, modify, reverse or remand the High Court judgment; rather, it expressly declined to interfere with it and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Accordingly, on the supplied material, the High Court’s conclusion that the Section 148 notice was not invalid merely because it lacked a signature, where the name and designation of the issuing authority were mentioned, remained in force.
Cases Discussed
- Umashankar Mishra v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Madhya Pradesh High Court), [1982] 11 Taxman 75 (MP)
- Narayana Chetty v. Income-Tax Officer (Supreme Court of India), [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC)
Read HC Judgment in this case: Asro Arcade Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Exemption Application is allowed.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
