Dismissing the petitions, the Court held that the notices were issued on March 31, 2021 through email and under rule 127A(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 they were deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of the authority were printed on the email body or was printed on the attachment to the email. The notices showed the name and office of the authority printed on the attachment to the email. The assessees could not bring any fact on record to show that the notices under section 148 were not issued by the electronic mode, i.e., by email, on March 31, 2021 and, that too, when the fact regarding digital signature of the authority could not be disputed. The digital signature of the authority was also on March 31, 2021 and, therefore, the notices were not issued on or after April 1, 2021, rather issued prior to the date. Writ petitions dismissed. (AY.2013-14)
Malavika Enterprises v. CBDT (2022) 445 ITR 651 / 287 Taxman 693 / 218 DTR 153 / 328 CTR 853 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-Date of issue and service of notice-Digital signature of Authority dated March 31, 2021-Notices Issued through Electronic mode on March 31, 2021 prior to amendment in law from April 1, 2021 and deemed to be served. [S. 148,149, 282, 282A, TOLA Act, 2020, S. 3(1), IT Rules 1962, R 127A(1), Art. 226]