Manoj Kumar Sahu Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
In this appeal before Raipur Bench , Assessee challenged reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 for AY 2013-14. The first legal ground raised was that notice u/s 148 was invalid as prior approval u/s 151 had not been obtained. Tribunal rejected this contention, recording that approval was duly obtained on 17.02.2020 & notice u/s 148 was issued only thereafter on 20.02.2020. Hence this ground was dismissed.
The second ground, alleging invalidity of approval because the physical copy did not bear a date, was not pressed by the Assessee & accordingly dismissed.
The third ground pertained to violation of Section 282A(1), as the approval u/s 151 furnished to Assessee was unsigned. Tribunal noted that similar issues were earlier decided in Smt. Shobha Dubey Vs ITO (Raipur ITAT), where it was held that absence of mandatory signature renders the proceedings void ab initio. Reliance was also placed on judgments including Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs ITO (Bombay HC), Umashankar Mishra (MP HC), & Hotel Blue Moon (SC), all emphasizing that unsigned notices or approvals are invalid. Tribunal held that Section 282A(1) requires any notice or approval issued by income-tax authorities to be mandatorily signed, whether in paper form or electronically communicated. The deeming provision of Section 282A(2) concerning authentication by name & designation does not override the mandatory requirement of signature in sub-section (1). Since in the present case the approval u/s 151 was unsigned, it was violative of law, arbitrary & void ab initio. Consequently, reassessment proceedings were quashed for lack of jurisdiction, rendering all subsequent proceedings non-est. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed on legal grounds, with merits left as academic.
