The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside an assessment order for the AY 2012-13, holding that an approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act that is unsigned and undated is invalid, rendering the subsequent notice under Section 148 jurisdiction-less.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Krish Road Carriers Private Limited, challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) dated 26.09.2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The core contention was that the sanction under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, which authorised the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 148, was neither signed nor dated, and therefore void.
Key Facts
- The assessee’s PAN is AACCK9702G and its registered address is CW-71, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi.
- A notice under Section 148 was issued on 22.03.2019.
- The approval under Section 151 was obtained from two authorities - Addl. CIT-14, New Delhi and Principal CIT, Delhi-05 - but the approval document contained only initials and no date or signature.
- The appellant submitted that the approval was a "mechanical" sanction, lacking the required manual or digital signature as mandated by Section 282A(1) of the Income-tax Act.
- The appellant relied on several precedents, including NTPC Ltd. v. CIT (1998), Sanjay Kumar v. DCIT (ITA No.5765/Del/2025), and Vikas Gupta v. UOI (2022), which emphasize the necessity of a signed approval.
- The Revenue did not object to the admission of the additional ground of appeal, acknowledging it as a pure legal issue.
Procedural History
- 26.09.2024: Order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) dated, imposing assessment for AY 2012-13.
- 22.03.2019: Notice under Section 148 issued by the Assessing Officer.
- 06.07.2026: Hearing of the appeal before the ITAT, Delhi Bench.
- 02.09.2026: Tribunal’s order quashing the sanction and the assessment order.
- 08.01.2026: Coordinate Bench decision in Sanjay Kumar v. DCIT (ITA No.5765/Del/2025) held similar approvals invalid.
Parties' Positions
- Appellant: Argued that an approval lacking a signature and date violates Section 282A(1) and therefore the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice.
- Respondent (Revenue): Accepted the admission of the additional ground but did not contest the legal proposition that a signed approval is mandatory.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quash of the sanction under Section 151, declaration that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law, and setting aside of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for AY 2012-13.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act that is unsigned and undated satisfies the statutory requirement of Section 282A(1), and consequently whether the Assessing Officer could validly issue a notice under Section 148 without such a valid approval.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Relied on NTPC Ltd. v. CIT (1998) to argue that the approval must be a "fit case" and must be signed by the designated authority.
- Cited Sanjay Kumar v. DCIT (ITA No.5765/Del/2025) and Vikas Gupta v. UOI (2022) establishing that an unsigned or mechanically granted approval is invalid.
- Emphasised the literal wording of Section 282A(1) - the notice or document "shall be signed" - making the signature a mandatory condition, not a formality.
- Pointed out that the approval in the present case contained only initials, no date, and no digital signature, thereby breaching the statutory mandate.
For the Respondent
- Stated that there was no objection to admitting the additional ground of appeal as a pure legal issue.
- Implicitly argued that the approval, though unsigned, could be deemed authentic under the second clause of Section 282A(2) which allows authentication by printing the name and office of the authority.
- Relied on the decision of Bharat Krishi Kendra v. UOI (2022) where a single-judge High Court held that an unsigned approval could be valid.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal began by examining the language of Section 282A(1), noting the use of the mandatory verb "shall" before "be signed" and the conjunctive "and" linking the act of signing to the mode of issuance. It held that the provision imposes a non-negotiable requirement that any notice or document issued by an income-tax authority must first be signed, either manually or digitally, before it can be issued in paper form or communicated electronically.
"Thus, the sanction granted u/s.151 of the Act without signing the same is invalid and therefore the Assessing Officer did not assume jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act."
The Tribunal distinguished the Bharat Krishi Kendra judgment, observing that the latter relied on Section 282A(2) for authentication but ignored the mandatory signing requirement of Section 282A(1). It emphasized that the two sub-sections must be read conjointly; otherwise, the first sub-section would become redundant.
Reference was made to the coordinate bench decision in Sanjay Kumar v. DCIT (ITA No.5765/Del/2025), which held that an approval lacking a signature and date is void. The Tribunal also considered the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) that, where a statutory provision admits more than one meaning, the interpretation favouring the assessee should be adopted.
Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the approval obtained by the Assessing Officer was undated, unsigned, and mechanically granted. Consequently, the Assessing Officer did not have a valid satisfaction under Section 151, and the notice issued under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for AY 2012-13 was therefore bad in law and was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the other grounds raised by the appellant were left open for future consideration, as the jurisdictional issue alone warranted the relief sought.
The Verdict
The appeal filed by Krish Road Carriers Private Limited was allowed. The Tribunal held that the sanction under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, being unsigned and undated, is invalid; consequently, the notice under Section 148 issued on 22.03.2019 was without jurisdiction and was quashed. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for AY 2012-13 dated 31.03.2024 was also quashed. No monetary relief was awarded, and the remaining grounds of appeal were left open.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Validity of Section 151 Approvals
- Approvals must bear the manual or digital signature of the designated authority.
- An approval that is merely initialed or lacks a date fails to meet the statutory requirement and renders any subsequent notice jurisdiction-less.
Mandatory Signing under Section 282A(1)
- The phrase "shall be signed" imposes a mandatory condition; it is not a procedural formality.
- Both paper and electronic communications require a signature before issuance.
- Reliance on Section 282A(2) for authentication does not cure the absence of a signature.
Impact on Assessment Notices
- Assessing Officers must obtain a valid, signed approval under Section 151 before issuing a notice under Section 148.
- Failure to do so will lead to the notice being declared bad in law and the assessment order being quashed.
- Practitioners should audit approval documents for signatures, dates, and proper digital signatures where applicable.
