Rajesh Chopra v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 62(1) Delhi

Signature Not Verified IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %Judgment delivered on: 28.05.2025 +W.P.(C) 12561/2022 RAJESH CHOPRA .... Petitioner Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1) DELHI.... RespondentAdvocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr.Utkarsh Kumar Gupta and Ms. Ananya Kapoor,Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Debesh Panda, Senior Standing Counsel withMs. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh and Ms.Delphina, Advocates. CORAMHON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON’BLE MR JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India impugning a notice dated 30.05.2022 issuedunder Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]; an orderdated 22.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act [impugnedorder]; and a notice dated 22.07.2022 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Act pursuant to the impugned order in respect of theassessment year 2013-14. 2.The petitioner contends that the impugned notice has been issuedbeyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) ofthe Act and therefore, is liable to be set aside. FACTUAL CONTEXT 3.The petitioner is an individual and is a resident of New Delhi.The petitioner filed its return of income on 08.08.2013 for AY 2013-14under Section 139(1) of the Act, declaring a total income of₹20,59,151/-. 4.The petitioner received a notice dated 31.03.2021 under Section148 of the Act. The petitioner complied with the said notice andfurnished its return of income on 07.04.2021, declaring the income aswas declared in the original return. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 23.11.2021 under Section 143(2) read withSection 147 of the Act. The petitioner furnished a reply to the saidnotice and duly participated in the said proceedings. The AO issuedanother notice dated 22.02.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Act andthe petitioner responded to the said notice as well. The said proceedingsdid not culminate in an assessment order, as the AO did not pass anysuch order at the material time. 5.The AO issued another notice dated 30.05.2022 under Section148A(b) of the Act and called upon the petitioner to file a reply on orbefore 13.06.2022. 6.The said notice indicated that it was issued in view of thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. AshishAgarwal: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543. 7.The petitioner responded to the said notice on 03.06.2022, interalia, claiming that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Actwas invalid, as it was issued after the time for completing theassessment had expired. The petitioner further contended that thereference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India andOrs. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) was misplaced, as it was applicableonly to notices that were issued under Section 148 of the Act during theperiod from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021. Therefore, the said decision hadno application as the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on31.03.2021 and the petitioner had participated in the re-assessmentproceedings that were commenced pursuant to the said notice. 8.The AO did not accept the petitioner’s objection as the noticedated 31.03.2021 was digitally signed at 07:44 PM but was delivered tothe petitioner on 01.04.2021. The AO noted that the ITBA deliverystatus through the email sent bears the timestamp of 01.04.2021 at07:30:47 AM and the delivery timestamp as 01.04.2021 at 07.30:48AM. In view of the above, the AO concluded that the notice was issuedon 01.04.2021 and not on 31.03.2021, that is, the date reflected on thenotice. REASONS AND CONCLUSION 9.The controversy involved in the present petition is in a narrowcompass. It is the petitioner’s case that the time for passing a re- Signature Not Verified 8.The AO did not accept the petitioner’s objection as the noticedated 31.03.2021 was digitally signed at 07:44 PM but was delivered tothe petitioner on 01.04.2021. The AO noted that the ITBA deliverystatus through the email sent bears the timestamp of 01.04.2021 at07:30:47 AM and the delivery timestamp as 01.04.2021 at 07.30:48AM. In view of the above, the AO concluded that the notice was issuedon 01.04.2021 and not on 31.03.2021, that is, the date reflected on thenotice. REASONS AND CONCLUSION 9.The controversy involved in the present petition is in a narrowcompass. It is the petitioner’s case that the time for passing a re- Signature Not Verified assessment order in respect of AY 2013-14 had expired on 31.03.2022being the period of twelve months from the date on which the noticeunder Section 148 of the Act was initially issued. The Revenuecontroverts the same and claims that the notice dated 31.03.2021 was,in fact, issued on 01.04.2021 and therefore, is required to be treated asa notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in terms of the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal(supra). There is no cavil that if the original notice dated 31.03.2021 isconstrued as a notice served on 01.04.2021, the petitioner’s challengeto the impugned notice and the impugned order is required to berejected. 10.At this stage, it is relevant to note that in Union of India and Ors.v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), the Supreme Court had issued directions inexercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Therelevant extract of the said judgment is set out below: “7.Thus, the new provisions substituted by the FinanceAct, 2021 being remedial and benevolent in nature andsubstituted with a specific aim and object to protect therights and interest of the assessee as well as and thesame being in public interest, the respective HighCourts have rightly held that the benefit of newprovisions shall be made available even in respect of theproceedings relating to past assessment years, providedsection 148 notice has been issued on or after 1st April,2021. We are in completeagreement with the viewtaken by the various High Courts in holding so.Act, 2021 being remedial and benevolent in nature andsubstituted with a specific aim and object to protect therights and interest of the assessee as well as and thesame being in public interest, the respective HighCourts have rightly held that the benefit of newprovisions shall be made available even in respect of theproceedings relating to past assessment years, providedsection 148 notice has been issued on or after 1st April,2021. We are in completeagreement with the viewtaken by the various High Courts in holding so. 8.However, at the same time, the judgments of the severalHighCourtswouldresultinnoreassessmentproceedings at all, even if the same are permissibleunder the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substitutedHighCourtswouldresultinnoreassessmentproceedings at all, even if the same are permissibleunder the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted 8.However, at the same time, the judgments of the severalHighCourtswouldresultinnoreassessmentproceedings at all, even if the same are permissibleunder the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substitutedHighCourtswouldresultinnoreassessmentproceedings at all, even if the same are permissibleunder the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act. The Revenue cannotbe made remediless and the object and purpose ofreassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is truethat due to a Bonafide mistake and in view ofsubsequent extension of time vide various notifications,the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section148aftertheamendmentwasenforcedw.e.f.01.04.2021, under the unamended section 148. In ourview the same ought not to have been issued under theunamended Act and ought to have been issued under thesubstituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the ITAct as per the Finance Act, 2021. There appears to begenuine non-application of the amendments as theofficers of the Revenue may have been under aBonafide belief that the amendments may not yet havebeen enforced. Therefore, we are of the opinion thatsome leeway must be shown in that regard which theHigh Courts could have done so. Therefore, instead ofquashing and setting aside the reassessment noticesissued under the unamended provision of IT Act, theHigh Courts ought to have passed an order construingthe notices issued under unamended Act/ unamendedprovision of the IT Act as those deemed to have beenissued under section 148A of the IT Act as per the newprovision section 148A and the Revenue ought to havebeen permitted to proceed further with the reassessmentproceedings as per the substituted provisions of sections14 7 to 151 of the IT Act as per the Finance Act, 2021,subject to compliance of all the procedural requirementsand the defences, which may be available to theassessee under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act and which may be available underthe Finance Act, 2021 and in law. Therefore, wepropose to modify the judgments and orders passed bythe respective High Courts as under: (i)The respective impugned section 148 noticesissued to the respective assessees shall be deemedto have been issued under section 148A of the ITAct as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 andtreated to be show-cause notices in terms ofsection 148A(b). The respective assessing officersissued to the respective assessees shall be deemedto have been issued under section 148A of the ITAct as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 andtreated to be show-cause notices in terms ofsection 148A(b). The respective assessing officers shall within thirty days from today provide to theassessees the information and material relied uponby the Revenue so that the assessees can reply tothe notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii)The requirement of conducting any enquiry withthe prior approval of the specified authority undersection 148A(a} be dispensed with as a one-timemeasure vis-a-vis those notices which have beenissued under Section 148 of the unamended Actfrom 01.04.2021 till date, including those whichhave been quashed by the High Courts;the prior approval of the specified authority undersection 148A(a} be dispensed with as a one-timemeasure vis-a-vis those notices which have beenissued under Section 148 of the unamended Actfrom 01.04.2021 till date, including those whichhave been quashed by the High Courts; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass an orderin terms of section 148A(d) after following the dueprocedure as required under section l 48A(b) inrespect of each of the concerned assessees;in terms of section 148A(d) after following the dueprocedure as required under section l 48A(b) inrespect of each of the concerned assessees; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass an orderin terms of section 148A(d) after following the dueprocedure as required under section l 48A(b) inrespect of each of the concerned assessees;in terms of section 148A(d) after following the dueprocedure as required under section l 48A(b) inrespect of each of the concerned assessees; (iv) All the defences which may be available to theassessee under section 149 and/or which may beavailable under the Finance Act, 2021 and in lawand whatever rights are available to the AssessingOfficer under the Finance Act, 2021 are kept openand/ or shall continue to be available and;assessee under section 149 and/or which may beavailable under the Finance Act, 2021 and in lawand whatever rights are available to the AssessingOfficer under the Finance Act, 2021 are kept openand/ or shall continue to be available and; (v) The present order shall substitute/modify respectivejudgments and orders passed by the respectiveHigh Courts quashing the similar notices issuedunder unamended section 148 of the IT Actirrespective of whether they have been assailedbefore this Court or not.judgments and orders passed by the respectiveHigh Courts quashing the similar notices issuedunder unamended section 148 of the IT Actirrespective of whether they have been assailedbefore this Court or not. 9.There is a broad consensus on the aforesaid aspectsamongst the learned ASG appearing on behalf of theRevenue and the learned Senior Advocates/learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respective asessees.We are also of the opinion that if the aforesaid order ispassed, it will strike a balance between the rights of theRevenue as well as the respective assesses as because ofa bonafide belief of the officers of the Revenue inissuing approximately 90000 such notices, the Revenuemay not suffer as ultimately it is the public exchequeramongst the learned ASG appearing on behalf of theRevenue and the learned Senior Advocates/learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respective asessees.We are also of the opinion that if the aforesaid order ispassed, it will strike a balance between the rights of theRevenue as well as the respective assesses as because ofa bonafide belief of the officers of the Revenue inissuing approximately 90000 such notices, the Revenuemay not suffer as ultimately it is the public exchequer which would suffer. Therefore, we have proposed topass the present order with a view avoiding filing offurther appeals before this Court and burden this Courtwith approximately 9000 appeals against the similarjudgments and orders passed by the various HighCourts, the particulars of some of which are referred tohereinabove. We have also proposed to pass theaforesaid order in exercise of our powers under Article142 of the Constitution of India by holding that thepresent order shall govern, not only the impugnedjudgments and orders passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad, but shall also be madeapplicable in respect of the similar judgments andorders passed by various High Courts across the countryand therefore the present order shall be applicable toPAN INDIA. 10.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. Theimpugned common judgments and orders passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No.524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/arehereby modified and substituted as under: -the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. Theimpugned common judgments and orders passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No.524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/arehereby modified and substituted as under: - 10.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. Theimpugned common judgments and orders passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No.524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/arehereby modified and substituted as under: -the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. Theimpugned common judgments and orders passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No.524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/arehereby modified and substituted as under: - (i)The impugned section 148 notices issued to therespective assessees which were issued underunamended section 148 of the IT Act, which werethe subject matter of writ petitions before thevarious respective High Courts shall be deemed tohave been issued under section 148A of the IT Actas substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 andconstrued or treated to be show-cause notices interms of section 148A(b). The assessing officershall, within thirty days from today provide to therespective assessees information and materialrelied upon by the Revenue, so that the asseseescan reply to the show-cause notices within twoweeks thereafter;respective assessees which were issued underunamended section 148 of the IT Act, which werethe subject matter of writ petitions before thevarious respective High Courts shall be deemed tohave been issued under section 148A of the IT Actas substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 andconstrued or treated to be show-cause notices interms of section 148A(b). The assessing officershall, within thirty days from today provide to therespective assessees information and materialrelied upon by the Revenue, so that the asseseescan reply to the show-cause notices within twoweeks thereafter; (ii)The requirement of conducting any enquiry, ifrequired, with the prior approval of specifiedauthorityundersection148A(a)isherebyrequired, with the prior approval of specifiedauthorityundersection148A(a)ishereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-a-visthose notices which have been issued undersection148oftheunamendedActfrom01.04.2021 till date, including those which havebeen quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwiseas observed hereinabove holding any enquiry withthe prior approval of specified authority is notmandatory but it is for the concerned AssessingOfficers to hold any enquiry, if required; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass ordersin terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each oftheconcernedassessees;Thereafterafterfollowing the procedure as required under section148A may issue notice under section 148 (assubstituted);in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each oftheconcernedassessees;Thereafterafterfollowing the procedure as required under section148A may issue notice under section 148 (assubstituted); (iv) All defences which may be available to the assessesincluding those available under section 149 of theIT Act and all rights and contentions which maybe available to the concerned assessees andRevenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in lawshall continue to be available.including those available under section 149 of theIT Act and all rights and contentions which maybe available to the concerned assessees andRevenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in lawshall continue to be available. (iv) All defences which may be available to the assessesincluding those available under section 149 of theIT Act and all rights and contentions which maybe available to the concerned assessees andRevenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in lawshall continue to be available.including those available under section 149 of theIT Act and all rights and contentions which maybe available to the concerned assessees andRevenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in lawshall continue to be available. 11.The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA andall judgments and orders passed by different HighCourts on the issue and under which similar noticeswhich were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by thepresent order and shall stand modified to the aforesaidextent. The present order is passed in exercise of powersunder Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as toavoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the veryissue by challenging similar judgments and orders, witha view not to burden this Court with approximately9000 appeals. We also observe that present order shallalso govern the pending writ petitions, pending beforevarious High Courts in which similar notices underSection 148 of the Act issued after 01.04.2021 are underchallenge.all judgments and orders passed by different HighCourts on the issue and under which similar noticeswhich were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by thepresent order and shall stand modified to the aforesaidextent. The present order is passed in exercise of powersunder Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as toavoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the veryissue by challenging similar judgments and orders, witha view not to burden this Court with approximately9000 appeals. We also observe that present order shallalso govern the pending writ petitions, pending beforevarious High Courts in which similar notices underSection 148 of the Act issued after 01.04.2021 are underchallenge. 12.The impugned common judgments and orders passed bythe High Court of Allahabad and the similar judgmentsand orders passed by various High Courts. Moreparticularly, the respective judgments and orders passedby the various High Courts particulars of which arementionedhereinabove,shallstandmodified/substituted to the aforesaid extent only.”the High Court of Allahabad and the similar judgmentsand orders passed by various High Courts. Moreparticularly, the respective judgments and orders passedby the various High Courts particulars of which arementionedhereinabove,shallstandmodified/substituted to the aforesaid extent only.” 11.In view of the PAN INDIA directions issued by the SupremeCourt in Union of India and Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), there isno cavil that all notices issued under Section 148 of the Act after01.04.2021 in consonance with the provisions regarding re-assessment[Section 147 to 151 of the Act] as were in force prior to 01.04.2021,were required to be construed as notices under Section 148A(b) of theAct. 12.The present petition was listed on 12.02.2024 before theCoordinate Bench of this court and this court had passed the followingorder: “1. The proceedings initiated by the respondent which areimpugned herein pertain to Sections 148A(b) and (d) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. 2. Undisputedly, the notice under Section 148 of the Actbears the date of 31 March 2021. According to Mr.Lalchandani, a copy of the screenshot of the Income TaxBusiness Application [“ITBA”] portal would indicate that itwas duly uploaded and was available on the portal of theDepartment on 31 March 2021 itself. This is so contended inlight of what appears at pdf page 80 of our digital record. Inaddition to the above, Mr. Lalchandani also refers to therecitals appearing in the notice dated 23 November 2021[Annexure P-5] and which too refers to the date of issuanceof the notice under Section 148 of the Act as 31 March 2021. “1. The proceedings initiated by the respondent which areimpugned herein pertain to Sections 148A(b) and (d) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. 2. Undisputedly, the notice under Section 148 of the Actbears the date of 31 March 2021. According to Mr.Lalchandani, a copy of the screenshot of the Income TaxBusiness Application [“ITBA”] portal would indicate that itwas duly uploaded and was available on the portal of theDepartment on 31 March 2021 itself. This is so contended inlight of what appears at pdf page 80 of our digital record. Inaddition to the above, Mr. Lalchandani also refers to therecitals appearing in the notice dated 23 November 2021[Annexure P-5] and which too refers to the date of issuanceof the notice under Section 148 of the Act as 31 March 2021. 3. However, the respondent in the counter affidavit which hasbeen filed before us has taken the categorical stand thatalthough the notice was digitally signed on 31 March 2021,it was sent and delivered to the petitioner on 01 April 2021.Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit reads as under: - “11. That the assessee’s case is also covered withthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in thecase of Suman Jeet Aggarwal and that the casepertains to category ‘C’, as the notice u/s 148 ofthe Act in the assessee’s case for the year underconsideration was digitally signed on 31.03.2021but the notice was sent and delivered to theassessee on 01.04.2021 [ITBA delivery statusthrough email sent time stamp 01.04.2021 at07:30:47AManddeliveredtimestamp01.04.2021 at 07:30:48 AM].” 4. The aforesaid issues are addressed in the backdrop of thejudgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India& Ors vs. Ashish Aggarwal [(2023) 1 SCC 617] as well asthe decision of the Division Bench of this Court in SumanJeet Agarwal vs. Income-tax Officer & Ors. [2022 SCCOnLine Del 3141]. 5. Insofar as the notice bearing a date of 31 March 2021 anddigitally signed on the same date is concerned, the DivisionBench in Suman Jeet Agarwal had held that subject toverification, determinative would be the date and time of thedispatch as recorded on the ITBA portal and that the actionof the respondent would be liable to be adjudged accordingly.It was further pertinently observed that if the date and timeof the dispatch recorded is found to be 01 April 2021 orthereafter, the notices would be governed by the decisionrendered in Ashish Aggarwal. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we call upon the respondent tofile an additional affidavit categorically making a disclosuretherein of the date and the time when the notice in questionwas uploaded on the ITBA portal. The said affidavit be filedwithin a period of three weeks from today.” 13.In compliance with the said order, the Revenue has filed anaffidavit, inter alia, affirming as under: “5. That in the assessee’s case, the notice u/s 148 of the Actwas issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021for theassessment year 2013-14 which was sent and deliveredto the assessee on 01.04.2021 i.e. “sent time stamp” is01.04.2021 at 07:30:47 AM and “delivered time stamp”is 01.04.2021 at 07:30:48 AM. Further, the notice u/s148 of the Act issued on 31.03.2021 in assessee’s casewas sent through speed post on 01.04.2021 to the”was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021for theassessment year 2013-14 which was sent and deliveredto the assessee on 01.04.2021 i.e. “sent time stamp” is01.04.2021 at 07:30:47 AM and “delivered time stamp”is 01.04.2021 at 07:30:48 AM. Further, the notice u/s148 of the Act issued on 31.03.2021 in assessee’s casewas sent through speed post on 01.04.2021 to the”assessee. 14.The Revenue had also filed an additional affidavit furtheraffirming as under: 14.The Revenue had also filed an additional affidavit furtheraffirming as under: “7. That it is stated in compliance of the orders dated12.02.2024 and 28.03.2025 that the notice under Section148 in question was not generated manually, so as to giverise to a situation where it would then have to bemanually “uploaded” on ITBA by the Respondent. It isstated that the notice was digitally generated and wasdigitally signed on 31.03.2021 at 07:44 PM and it musthave thereafter been uploaded on the ITBA portalautomatically,aspertheinformationsystemprogrammed which operates automatically, over whichthe Respondent has no control at all whatsoever. As theRespondent does not have access to the records on theITBA server, a request for the said information was madeto the concerned authorities. The said information is alsobeingtenderedundercoverofthisaffidavitasANNEXURE-1.”12.02.2024 and 28.03.2025 that the notice under Section148 in question was not generated manually, so as to giverise to a situation where it would then have to bemanually “uploaded” on ITBA by the Respondent. It isstated that the notice was digitally generated and wasdigitally signed on 31.03.2021 at 07:44 PM and it musthave thereafter been uploaded on the ITBA portalautomatically,aspertheinformationsystemprogrammed which operates automatically, over whichthe Respondent has no control at all whatsoever. As theRespondent does not have access to the records on theITBA server, a request for the said information was madeto the concerned authorities. The said information is alsobeingtenderedundercoverofthisaffidavitasANNEXURE-1.” 15.It is clear from the above that the notice had been signed digitallyon the system on 31.03.2021 and was, thus, placed on the portal.However, the email was despatched to the petitioner on the morning of01.04.2021 at 07:30:47 AM and was delivered at 7:30:48 AM. Thenotice was also despatched to the petitioner by speed post on01.04.2021. 16.It is material to note that it is not the petitioner’s case that he had,in fact, received the notice on 31.03.2021. 17.Section 149(1) of the Act proscribes issuance of notice beyondthe period as stipulated in the said section. In Suman Jeet Agarwal v.Income Tax Officer and Ors.: (2022) 449 ITR 517, the CoordinateBench of this Court had considered the question regarding as to the dateof issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act for ascertaining theperiod of limitation for issuance of such a notice. We consider itapposite to refer to the following extracts of the said decision: “25. Question No. (I) : Whether the jurisdictional Assessing Officer'sact of generating notice in the Income Tax Business Application portalon March 31, 2021, without despatching the notice meets the test of theexpression "shall be issued" in section 149 of the Act of 1961, and savesthe notices from being time barred? 25.1. It has emerged as an admitted position on facts, that the e-mailsattaching the impugned notices dated March 31, 2021, were despatchedby the Income Tax Business Application servers on April 1, 2021, orthereafter. 25.2. Faced with the aforesaid factual position, it has been contended bythe Department that since generation of impugned notices on the IncomeTax Business Application portal on March 31, 2021, is undisputed, thesingular act of generation of notice by the jurisdictional AssessingOfficer satisfies the requirement of "issued" for the purpose of section149 of the Act of 1961 and despatch of the notice on March 31, 2021 isnot a mandatory requirement. ***** 25.12. The review of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court andthe several High Courts shows that all courts have consistently held thatthe expression "issue" in its common parlance and its legal interpretationmeans that the issuer of the notice must after drawing up the notice andsigning the notice, make an overt act to ensure due despatch of the notice to the addressee. It is only upon due despatch, that the notice can be saidto have been "issued". ***** 25.12. The review of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court andthe several High Courts shows that all courts have consistently held thatthe expression "issue" in its common parlance and its legal interpretationmeans that the issuer of the notice must after drawing up the notice andsigning the notice, make an overt act to ensure due despatch of the notice to the addressee. It is only upon due despatch, that the notice can be saidto have been "issued". 25.13. Further, a perusal of the compliance affidavit reveals that whilethe function of generation of notice on Income Tax Business Applicationportal and digital signing of the notice is executed by the jurisdictionalAssessing Officer, the function of drafting of the e-mail to which thenotice is attached and triggering the e-mail to the assessee is performedby the Income Tax Business Application e-mail software system. Thus,mere generation of notice on the Income Tax Business Applicationscreen cannot in fact or in law constitute issue of notice, whether thenotice is issued in paper form or electronic form. In case of paper form,the notice must be despatched by post on or before March 31, 2021 andfor communication in electronic form the e-mail should have beendespatched on or before March 31, 2021. In the present writ petitions,the despatch by post and e- mail was carried out on or after April 1, 2021and therefore, we hold that, the impugned notices were not issued onMarch 31, 2021. ***** 25.18. Additionally, the contention of the counsel for the Departmentthat generation of section 148 notice on the Income Tax BusinessApplication screen amounts to "issued" within the meaning of section149 of the Act of 1961 is not borne out from the instructions issued bythe Directorate of Income-tax (Systems). On the contrary, the saidcirculars duly recognize that after generation of notice the concernedIncome-tax authority is required to take overt steps for issuing the saidnotice to the assessee. The circulars use the words "generation" and"issuance" distinctively. In this regard reference may be madeillustratively to the following instructions : (a) The Income Tax Business Application Assessment Instruction No. 2(F.No.System/IncomeTaxBusinessApplication/Instruction/Assessment/ 16-17/177, dated August 1, 2016)issued by the Directorate of Income-tax (System) mentions that : "the Assessing Officer Staff/Assessing Officer Inspector will not beable to generate the notice but will be able to view the notices alreadygenerated by the Assessing Officer for taking a printout of the same,for issue to the assessee." (b) The Income Tax Business Application Assessment Instruction No. 3(FNo.System/IncomeTaxBusinessApplication/Instruction/Assessment/ 177/16-17/), dated February 3,2017, also illustrates the same distinction : "DetailsoftheAuthority/partyfromwhominformationisrequisitioned can be entered along with date for compliance and thenotice can then be generated and issued." 25.19. The counsel for the Department have also sought to argue thatgeneration of a notice with document identification number on IncomeTax Business Application screen conclusively indicates that the noticehas been irrevocably issued. The submission of the respondent is notborne out from the applicable circular regarding document identificationnumber issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes and is therefore a mereipse dixit of the counsel. 25.20. As per Circular No. 19 of 2019 (F. No. 225/95/2019-ITA.II),dated August 14, 2019 ([2019] 416 ITR (St.) 140 ) issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, the document identification number wasintroduced to maintain a proper audit of trail of communications issuedby the Income-tax authority. The said circular does not state that thegeneration of document identification number would automaticallyconstituteissuanceofthenotice.Relevantextractfromtheaforementioned circular is reproduced as under (page 140 of 416 ITR(St.) : 25.20. As per Circular No. 19 of 2019 (F. No. 225/95/2019-ITA.II),dated August 14, 2019 ([2019] 416 ITR (St.) 140 ) issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, the document identification number wasintroduced to maintain a proper audit of trail of communications issuedby the Income-tax authority. The said circular does not state that thegeneration of document identification number would automaticallyconstituteissuanceofthenotice.Relevantextractfromtheaforementioned circular is reproduced as under (page 140 of 416 ITR(St.) : ".. . However, it has been brought to the notice of the Central Board ofDirect Taxes (the Board) that there have been some instances in whichthe notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence (hereinafterreferred to as 'communication') were found to have been issuedmanually,withoutmaintainingaproperaudittrailofsuchcommunication. 2. In order to prevent such instances and to maintain proper audit trailof all communication, the Board in exercise of power under section119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'),has decided that no communication shall be issued by any Income-taxauthority relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory orotherwise,exemptions,enquiry,investigation,verificationofinformation, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to theassessee or any other person, on or after October 1, 2019 unless a computer-generated document identification number (DIN) has beenallotted and is duly quoted in the body of' such communication."(emphasis supplied) In fact, in several cases, we take judicial notice that even as on datethe jurisdictional Assessing Officers issue notices which do not havedocument identification number and in those cases the Departmentcontends that the absence of the document identification number doesnot make those notices invalid.” 18.Clearly, the date of notice is vital for determining the rights ofthe parties and there can be no uncertainty regarding the date of issuanceof notice. It is, thus necessary that the date of issue of notice beascertained on completion of the precise steps for issuance of the notice.In terms of the decision of this Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. IncomeTax Officer and Ors. (supra), as noted above, where the notice is sentelectronically, the date of dispatch of the e-mail is to be considered asthe date of issue of the notice. Thus, in this case the date of issue ofnotice would have to be taken as 01.04.2021. 19.As stated at the outset, if there is no dispute that the date ofissuance of notice is considered as 01.04.2021, then the said notice wasrequired to be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act interms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors.v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). 20.It is material to note that a notice under Section 148 of the Act isa jurisdictional notice and issuance of such notice is necessary for theAO to assume jurisdiction to assess/re-assess the income under Section147 of the Act. If the notice under Section 148 is found to be invalid, itwould vitiate the proceedings commenced pursuant thereto. Thus, Signature Not Verified merely because the parties had laboured under a misconception at theinitial stage that the initial notice issued under Section 148 of the Actwas valid, would not invalidate the subsequent steps taken by theRevenue in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Unionof India and Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as the decision ofthis Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.(supra). 21.Viewed from another perspective, if an adverse re-assessmentorder was passed pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2021 (issued on01.04.2021), the same would be vulnerable to a challenge by theAssessee on the ground that the proceedings were not in compliancewith the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Union of India andOrs. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). 22.In view of the above, we find it difficult to sustain the petitioner’schallenge in the present petition. The petition is, accordingly,dismissed. 21.Viewed from another perspective, if an adverse re-assessmentorder was passed pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2021 (issued on01.04.2021), the same would be vulnerable to a challenge by theAssessee on the ground that the proceedings were not in compliancewith the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Union of India andOrs. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). 22.In view of the above, we find it difficult to sustain the petitioner’schallenge in the present petition. The petition is, accordingly,dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 28, 2025RK