S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Validity of unsigned approval-The approval under section 151 dated 30-3-2021 was unsigned, the Assessing Officer had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148; consequently, the notice under section 148 and all consequential proceedings were quashed- The Court also held that section 292BC, being applicable retrospectively from 1-4-2021, had no application to the approval granted on 30-3-2021. [S. 148, 282A(2), 292BC, Art. 226]
The assessee challenged the notice issued under section 148 for A.Y. 2017-18 on the ground, inter alia, that the approval granted under section 151 was unsigned. The Revenue contended that the approval was generated through the electronic system, bore a valid DIN and was therefore valid, relying upon section 282A(2) and the decision in Asro Arcade v. ITO (2026) 311 Taxman 76 (Delhi)(HC). The Bombay High Court held that grant of sanction under section 151 is a statutory safeguard and a pre-condition for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148. An approval under section 151 constitutes an “other document” within the meaning of section 282A(1), which mandates that such document shall be signed by the concerned Income-tax Authority, either manually or digitally. The Court held that the absence of signature on the approval was fatal and rendered the approval invalid. The presence of a DIN or electronic transmission could not dispense with the statutory requirement of a valid signature. Section 282A(2), which provides for authentication where the name and office of the designated authority are mentioned, does not override the mandatory requirement under section 282A(1). The Court distinguished between authenticity and legality of a document and expressly declined to agree with the contrary view of the Delhi High Court in Asro Arcade. Since the approval under section 151 dated 30-3-2021 was unsigned, the Assessing Officer had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148; consequently, the notice under section 148 and all consequential proceedings were quashed. The Court also held that section 292BC, being applicable retrospectively from 1-4-2021, had no application to the approval granted on 30-3-2021. (AY. 2017 -18 ) ( W.P. (L) No. 9105 of 2022. Dt. 5-8-2026)
Nikhil Nagindas Modi v. Dy. CIT (Bom)(HC) www.itaonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Justice Shri B. P. Colabawalla & Hon’ble Justice Shri Firdosh P. Pooniwalla]