Infinity International Vs NFAC (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Unsigned Notice, No Jurisdiction: ITAT Ahmedabad Quashes Reassessments as Void ab initio
The ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee’s appeals for AYs 2014–15 and 2015–16, holding that the notices issued under section 148 were invalid as they were neither digitally signed nor manually signed by the issuing authority. This jurisdictional defect, admitted by the Revenue itself, was held to be fatal to the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced copies of the section 148 notices issued through the ITBA system on 31.03.2021, which clearly did not bear any visible digital or physical signature. On a specific query from the Bench, the Department confirmed by email that, as per system records, the notices did not contain digital signatures, and that the later CPC-generated date appearing on the notices did not represent the actual date of issue.
Relying on binding judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court decision in Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj (451 ITR 27) and the Karnataka High Court decision in Kangadan Majeed, the Tribunal held that a notice without the signature of the Assessing Officer is no notice in the eyes of law. Such a defect is not curable under section 292B, as absence of signature goes to the very root of jurisdiction and is not a mere procedural or clerical lapse.
The Tribunal distinguished cases like Sky Light Hospitality, clarifying that those decisions dealt with curable defects, whereas an unsigned notice amounts to a complete lack of authority to assume jurisdiction. Since the very foundation—the section 148 notice—was invalid, the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 were held to be void ab initio.
Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings for both years were quashed in full, and the assessee’s appeals were allowed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
