Notice u/s 148A(b) not signed physically or digitally is illegal, invalid & inoperative

Notice u/s 148A(b) not signed physically or digitally is illegal, invalid and inoperative – High Court

In a recent judgment, High Court of Karnataka has held that Notice u/s 148A(b) was illegal on two counts first notice was not signed physically or digitally secondly, notice prescribed less than 7 days to respond.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4109 (2024) (06) HC

Important Case Laws relied upon:
Smt. Janaki Aenuga vs Income Tax Officer

In the instant case, the assessee had filed a Writ Petition praying quashing of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Further, the attention of the Hon’ble High Court was invited to the impugned Notice issued under Section 148A(b) in order to point out that the said notice issued by AO to the petitioner was an unsigned notice and therefore was illegal, invalid and inoperative and no proceedings pursuant thereto could have been taken by the respondents and the same deserved to be quashed.

The petitioner submitted that the impugned show cause notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act and all further proceedings pursuant thereto including Assessment Year etc., were vitiated on account of the period prescribed in the said notice being only 6 days which is less than the mandatory period of 7 days as prescribed under Section 148 A(b) of the Act.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that petitioner was correct in his submissions that the impugned notice having not been digitally / physically signed, the same was illegal, invalid and inoperative as previously held by the Court.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that it can be seen that the Court had come to the categorical conclusion that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, is not signed either physically or digitally and the same is illegal, invalid and inoperative and further proceedings pursuant thereto including the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, penalty notices, orders, etc., deserve to the quashed.

Further, it was noted that having regard to the minimum period of seven days prescribed under Section 148A(b) of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that if notice under Section 148A(b) prescribes a period lesser than a period of seven days as contemplated in the said provision, the said notice would be vitiated resulting in quashment of not only the notice but also the subsequent assessment orders, penalty notices, orders, etc..

The Hon’ble High Court observed that in the instant case, it was an undisputed fact that the Notice was not signed either physically or digitally but the impugned notice also prescribed a period of six days, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the Act

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned notice and also consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• AO took a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat was 25 lakh – ITAT
• Shareholders can’t be taxed for income from properties owned by the company – HC
• Jurisdictional error in reassessment approval can’t be shielded by the law of limitation
• ITAT ought to remanded whole matter of bogus purchases instead of profit determination
• Where proceedings u/s 153C barred by limitation, AO can’t invoke section 148 & 148A