Unsigned Notice: ITAT Ahmedabad Quashes Reassessments as Void ab initio

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

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 23.12.2024 and 10.01.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively.

2. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical and arise from similar facts, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of appellants case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer which is void and deserves to be quashed.”

4. For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the issue before us is to adjudicate as to “whether the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act can be held to be valid or not, in the absence of signature of the issuing authority either digitally or manually”.

5. The Ld. Senior Advocate, appearing for the assessee, filed before us the notices at page nos. 1 and 364 of the paper-book, evidencing the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act for AYs 2014-16 and 2015-16 are not signed by the issuing authority either digitally or manually .

For the sake of ready reference, both the notices are reproduced below:-

AY 2014-15

AY 2015-16

6. In this context, a report has been called for from the Department. The Revenue submitted before us an email communication dated 29.12.2025, wherein it was stated that notices u/s 148 for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were issued through ITBA system on 31.03.2021 and pointed out that, as per system records, the said notices do not bear visible digital signatures.

7. For the sake of succinctness, the reply of the Revenue is reproduced as under:-

8. On this issue, we are guided by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Kangadan Majeed Vs. ITO, WP No. 27081 of 2023, order dated 29.10.2025. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced below:-

“7. The rival submissions are considered and this Court must opine that with the authorities being unable to dispute that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act is not either digitally or manually signed and with the proposition enunciated by the High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid decision being applicable on all fours to this case, the petition must be disposed of on the ground that the first respondent could not have continued the proceedings based on 148A(b) 17.03.2022. However, the authorities must be reserved with liberty, subject to all just exceptions in law, to initiate further proceedings. Hence, the following

ORDER

The petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 17.03.2022 issued by the first respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Annexure-A], the subsequent adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) [Annexure-A1] of the IT Act, the notice dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-A2], the assessment order dated 24.02.2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act [Annexure-A3] and the consequential penalty orders and demand notices dated 24.08.2023 and 07.07.2023 [Annexures-A4, A5 and A6] are quashed.”

4. Under these circumstances, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

5. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned orders/notices at Annexure-A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,, A6, A7, A8, A9, B1, B2 and B3 dated 21.03.2023, 21.03.2023, 21.03.2023, 21.09.2023, 21.09.2023, 21.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 25,09.2023, 14.03.2022, 26.03.2022 and 27.03.2022, respectively are hereby quashed.”

9. We are also guided by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, 451 ITR 27. The operative portion of the said judgement reads as under:-

“…

18. Sky Light Hospitality (supra) cited by the respondents was also not a case where the notice issued to the assessee was unsigned. That was a case where the notice u/s.148 was issued with a signature, but the address of the assessee was only partly correct. It was in that context that the Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 292B of the Act, where there was a mistake, defect or an omission in the complete address on which the notice was issued to the assessee, would cure such defect, and an objection to the validity of the notice could not be raised. In that fact of the matter, the judgment in Sky Light Hospitality (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, which is one where the signature of the Assessing Officer was not affixed on the notice.

19. Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in B.K. Gooyee and Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd. (supra) to the facts of the present case, the signature of the Assessing Officer admittedly not having been affixed on the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the notice itself would be invalid and consequently, the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in terms of section 148 of the Act. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umashankar Mishra (supra) has dealt with a similar fact situation where the first substantial question of law dealt with in that case had considered the effect of whether an unsigned notice can be considered as an irregularity or clerical mistake. The Madhya Pradesh High Court after making reference to the conclusions drawn in B.K. Gooyee (supra) by the Calcutta High Court, has taken the view, that a notice without a signature affixed on it is an invalid notice and is effectively no notice in the eyes of law.

20. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umashankar (supra) has further dealt with the second substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the absence of a signature on the notice constitutes a mistake or omission within the meaning of section 292B of the Act and while addressing itself to that question, has concluded that in the absence of a signature on the notice, the same would not constitute a mistake or omission and would not be curable under the provisions of section 292B of the Act.

21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the present case, the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the income of the petitioner. Consequently, the notice dated 02.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act issued to the petitioner being invalid and sought to be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 with which we are concerned in this petition, any steps taken by the respondents in furtherance of notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and order dated 02.04.2022 issued under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act, would be without jurisdiction, and therefore, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we quash and set aside the notice dated 02.04.2022 issued by the respondents u/s.148 of the Act, order dated 02.04.2022 under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act.”

10. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts and since the factum that the notices issued were not digitally signed is not in dispute as acknowledged by the Revenue, the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the assessments. Hence, the Assessments Orders passed for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 are hereby treated as void ab initio.

11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

The order is dictated and pronounced in the open Court today on 07.01.2026