For assessment year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and, thereafter, passed an ex-parte assessment order, followed by a penalty order and a notice of demand. It was not in dispute that the notice under section 148 was unsigned, being neither digitally nor manually signed by the Assessing Officer. The Court held that section 282A requires a notice or other document required to be issued by an income-tax authority to be signed and issued in paper form, or communicated in electronic form, in the prescribed manner; a notice under section 148 must therefore be signed by the concerned authority, and the failure to do so renders it invalid at its very inception. Such a defect is not curable under section 292B or section 292BB and is not cured by the assessee’s participation in the proceedings. The unsigned notice under section 148, the ex-parte assessment order under section 147, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and the notice of demand under section 156 were accordingly quashed. Followed, Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO (2023) 451 ITR 27 / 293 Taxman 132 (Bom.). Refer, Sonia Gandhi v. Asst. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 594 / 257 Taxman 515 (Delhi)(HC) (AY. 2014-15)