Asro Arcade Vs ITO (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The matter arose from reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 18.03.2026 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, principally contending that the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 was invalid as it did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer. The petitioner relied upon Section 282A and submitted that an unsigned notice could not constitute a valid foundation for reassessment proceedings. The petitioner therefore contended that the assessment order was void and without jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court considered the notice and the rival submissions. The Department submitted that Section 282A(2) provides for deemed authentication where the name and office of the designated income-tax authority are printed, stamped or otherwise written on the notice. The Department pointed out that the notice contained the name and designation of the issuing officer, namely Prabal Gupta, WARD 44(1), Delhi. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not raised the objection regarding the alleged irregularity before the Assessing Officer and was seeking to raise it for the first time before the High Court after the assessment order had been passed.
The petitioner, in rejoinder, relied upon Umashankar Mishra v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1982] 11 Taxman 75 (MP) and Narayana Chetty v. Income-Tax Officer [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC).
