Facts of the Case

  • A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.06.2021 was allegedly issued.
  • However, the notice was actually communicated via email only on 16.07.2021.
  • Subsequent notices under Section 148A(b), order under Section 148A(d), and consequential notice under Section 148 were also issued.
  • The petitioner contended that the entire reassessment proceedings were time-barred, as the permissible window for issuance of notice under the new regime expired on 30.06.2021.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the reassessment notice dated 30.06.2021 was validly issued within the statutory time limit?
  2. Whether communication of notice after 30.06.2021 renders reassessment proceedings time-barred?
  3. Whether absence of timestamp/digital signature affects the validity of notice issuance?

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The notice dated 30.06.2021 was not actually issued on that date, but only sent via email on 16.07.2021, beyond the permissible period.
  • Under the amended provisions, fresh reassessment notices could only be issued between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021.
  • Therefore, the proceedings were barred by limitation.
  • Reliance was placed on precedents:
    • Genesis Colors Ltd. v. ACIT
    • Vinayak Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue was unable to produce evidence proving that the notice was dispatched on 30.06.2021.
  • No counter-affidavit was filed despite opportunities.
  • The Revenue could not rebut the petitioner’s claim regarding delayed communication.

 

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The notice did not bear timestamp or digital signature, raising doubt about its issuance date.
  • The only available evidence showed that the notice was emailed on 16.07.2021.
  • Hence, the notice was issued beyond the statutory time limit.
  • Reassessment proceedings were therefore time-barred.

Final Order:

  • Notice dated 30.06.2021 under Section 148
  • Notices under Section 148A(b)
  • Order under Section 148A(d) dated 29.06.2022
  • Consequential notice under Section 148

 

Important Clarification by Court

  • Issuance of notice must be within the prescribed limitation period, not merely dated within it.
  • Mere mention of a date on the notice is insufficient without proof of actual dispatch/communication.
  • Absence of digital signature or timestamp weakens the validity of notice issuance.
  • This case reinforces that procedural compliance is mandatory in reassessment proceedings.

 

Sections Involved

  • Section 147 – Income escaping assessment
  • Section 148 – Issue of notice for reassessment
  • Section 148A(b) – Opportunity before issuance of notice
  • Section 148A(d) – Order after considering reply

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60820122023CW70572023_180926.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.