Nanda Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
ITAT Raipur Quashes Reassessment — Unsigned 143(2) Notice Violates Mandatory Signature Under Section 282A(1); Deeming Authentication in Section 282A(2) Cannot Cure Defect
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 05.07.2018 was completely unsigned, and even the screenshot of the notice was unsigned, causing a direct violation of Section 282A(1), which mandates that every notice “shall be signed.” Applying the Bench’s own ruling in Smt. Shobha Dubey, the ITAT clarified that Section 282A(2)—which provides a deeming fiction for authentication when name and designation are printed—does not override the mandatory signature requirement in Section 282A(1). The Department’s reliance on Section 292B was rejected, as absence of signature is not a curable procedural mistake. Relying on Hotel Blue Moon (SC) and Shaily Juneja (Del HC), the Tribunal held that without a valid 143(2), the AO lacks inherent jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 263/144B. The entire reassessment was held invalid, arbitrary, and void ab initio, rendering all consequential proceedings non est. The assessee’s appeal was allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 11.09.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
