Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 585 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTValidity of reopening notice issued u/s 148A - not signed either physically or digitally - minimum period of seven days prescribed under Section 148A(b) not provided - HELD THAT:- This Court has 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 u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act, penalty notices, orders, etc., deserve to the quashed. Lesser period than a period of seven days - So also, having regard to the minimum period of seven days prescribed under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act as held by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Mukesh J. Ruparel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(1) [2023 (8) TMI 228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that if notice u/s 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. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the Notice is not signed either physically or digitally but the impugned notice also prescribes a period of six days, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Begur’s case [2023 (11) TMI 1222 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mukesh’s case supra, Impugned notice and also consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., deserves to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to take recourse to such remedies as available in law. Decided in favour of assessee.
|