Smt Janaki Aenuga Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Janaki Aenuga challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner sought quashing of the notice issued under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the reassessment order passed under Sections 147 read with 144, and the consequential penalty orders under Sections 271F, 271(1)(c), and 271(1)(b). The principal challenge was that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was neither digitally nor physically signed and required the petitioner to submit a response within six days instead of the statutory minimum period of seven days prescribed under Section 148A(b).
The High Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that the notice under Section 148A(b) was unsigned and therefore illegal, invalid, and inoperative. Referring to its earlier decision in Begur Sinappa Venkatesh v. Income Tax Officer, which had relied upon the Bombay High Court judgment in Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. Income Tax Officer, the Court held that an unsigned notice under Section 148A(b) does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to continue reassessment proceedings. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings founded upon such notice, including the order under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the reassessment order, and consequential penalty proceedings, could not be sustained.
