[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ravi Kumar Nagdeo vs Union Of India on 8 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:16134
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR
TAMRAKAR Date:
2026.04.09
14:34:49
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPT No. 221 of 2022
Ravi Kumar Nagdeo S/o Late Shri Radhamal Nagdeo Aged About 56 Years
R/o Opposite Jagdish Lagde Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin-
495001
... Petitioner
versus
1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Finance, Department Of
Revenue, North Block, New Delhi- 110001, India.
2. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1(1), Bilaspur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer
Ward -1 (1), Bilaspur, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh- 495001, India
3. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Raipur- 1 Office Of The Principal
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Raipur- 1, Central Revenue Building Civil
Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001, India.
4. Additional/joint/assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/income Tax Officer
National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, India
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate
For U.O.I./Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. S.G. along with Mr.
Abhishek Banjare, C.G.C.
For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the brief
of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
08.04.2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
"10A.1 Quashing /setting aside Annexure "P/1".
Annexure "P/3"(Colly), Annexure "P/5" (Colly),
Annexure "P/6"
2
10A.2 Any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the
case.
10. B INTERIM RELIEF(S) PRAYED: -
10B.1 Calling for the entire records of the present
matter.
10B.2 Staying effect and operation of Annexure
"P/1", Annexure "P/3" (Colly), Annexure "P/5"
(Colly), Annexure "P/6" till the disposal of the
present petition.
10B.3 Any other interim relief(s) that this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of
the case."
2. Mr. Dubey would submit that a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act,
1961 was issued to the petitioner after cut-off date i.e. 01.04.2021, therefore,
the respondent authorities were under obligation to conduct a proceeding
according to the provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for
short "Act, 1961"). He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
High Court of Delhi in the matter of Suman Jeet Agrawal vs. Income-tax
Officer reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4
would submit that notice under Section 148 of Act, 1961 was dispatched on
31st of March, 2021, and therefore, there was no need to conduct a
proceeding according to the provisions of Section 148A of the Act, 1961.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
5. Perusal of screen shot of Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal
would reveal that notice was issued on 01.04.2021 at 12:19:37 hour, and
3
thus, it was issued after cut-off date, and therefore, the respondent authorities
are required to conduct a proceeding according to the provisions of Section
148A of the Act, 1961.
6. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Suman Jeet Agrawal (supra) while
dealing with the similar issue in para 25.1 to 25.13, 26.20 and 26.23 held has
under :-
"25.1 It has emerged as an admitted position on facts, that the e-
mails attaching the impugned Notices dated 31st March, 2021,
were despatched by the ITBA servers on 01st April, 2021, or
thereafter.
25.2 Faced with the aforesaid factual position, it has been
contended by the Department that since generation of impugned
Notices on the ITBA portal on 31st March, 2021, is undisputed,
the singular act of generation of Notice by JAO satisfies the
requirement of issued for the purpose of section 149 of the Act of
1961 and despatch of the Notice on 31st March, 2021 is not a
mandatory requirement.
25.3 The Department contends that since each of the impugned
Notices bear a DIN, its generation as on 31st March, 2021, is
beyond doubt. It is further contended that since, on the ITBA
portal, after generation of Notice the JAO is left with no power to
amend, alter, cancel or ante-date the Notice, the said act of
generation conclusively establishes that the Notice has been
issued.
25.4 The petitioners as noted above have opposed this contention
of the Department as being contrary to settled law interpreting the
expression 'issued', 'shall be issued and the dictionary meaning of
the phrase 'issue'. It is contended that under the Act of 1961, a
Notice is held to be 'issued on the date of its due despatch and not
on the date the notice is drawn up.
25.5 It would be useful to refer to the judgments relied upon by
the petitioners, which clearly bring out that for an authority to
contend that a Notice has been issued, the same must be duly
despatched by the issuing authority. The first instructive judgment
on this point is Delhi Development Authority (supra) at
paragraphs 5, 13 and 15, which reads as under:
'...
5. The substituted clause (ii) in para 2, in O.M. dated
4
September 14, 1992, is as under:
"(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge-
sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are
pending; and"
...
13.... The context in which the word 'Issued' has been
used, merely means that the decision to initiate
disciplinary proceedings is taken and translated into action
by despatch of the charge-sheet leaving no doubt that the
decision had been taken. The contrary view would defeat
the object by enabling the government servant, if so
inclined, to evade service and thereby frustrate the
decision and get promotion in spite of that decision.
Obviously, the contrary view cannot be taken.
...
15. The meaning of the word 'issued', on which
considerable stress was laid by learned counsel for the
respondent, has to be gathered from the context in which it
is used. Meanings of the word 'issue' given in the Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary include: 'to give exit to; to send
forth, or allow to pass out; to let out; ... to give or send out
authoritatively or officially; to send forth or deal out
formally or publicly; to emit, put into circulation'. The
issue of a charge-sheet, therefore, means its despatch to the
government servant, and this act is complete the moment
steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the charge-
sheet and despatching it to the government servant, the
further fact of its actual service on the government servant
not being a necessary part of its requirement.
(Emphasis Supplied)
In the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court emphatically laid
down that despatch is an essential condition to complete the act of
issuance. The Court clarified that service on the recipient was not
a condition precedent for satisfying the act of issuance.
25.6 It would also be useful to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra). In the said
case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the controversy of
the validity of a notice with reference to sections 148 and 149 of
the Act of 1961. In the said case, the notice under section 148 of
the Act of 1961, was despatched by registered post on 31st March,
1970, but the same was received by the assessee on 03rd April,
1970; and therefore, the Gujarat High Court after observing that
the expression "issued and 'served' in sections 148 and 149 have
the same meaning, held that the notice was time barred. In appeal,
the Supreme Court after taking note that the Notice was
despatched by registered post on 31st March, 1970, set aside the
judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the
service of notice is not a condition precedent for satisfying the
condition of "issued". The date of despatch of the notice was taken
into consideration by the Supreme Court as the relevant date for
determining that the notice has been validly issued for the purpose
of section 149 of the Act of 1961. The date of notice is discernible
from the judgment of High Court1.
25.7. The contention of the Department that since the impugned
Notices were generated and digitally signed on 31st March, 2021,
the same should be considered as the date of issue,
notwithstanding the fact that the same had not been despatched,
was categorically rejected by the Madras High Court in Smt.
Parveen Amin Bhathara (supra) following the judgment of Gujarat
High Court in Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) (supra). The Gujarat
High Court, dealing with a notice issued in paper form, at
paragraphs 13 and 16 observed as under:
"....
13.... Whereas, on behalf of the revenue, it has been
contended that the notices were actually signed on 31-3-
2010, hence, the said date would be the date of issue and
as such, the impugned notices have been issued within the
time limit prescribed under section 149 of the Act.
16. Thus, the expression to issue in the context of issuance
of notices, writs and process, has been attributed the
meaning, to send out; to place in the hands of the proper
officer for service. The expression "shall be issued" as
used in section 149 would therefore have to be read in the
aforesaid context. In the present case, the impugned
notices have been signed on 31-3-2010, whereas the same
were sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 7-4-
2010. Considering the definition of the word issue, it is
apparent that merely signing the notices on 31-3-2010,
cannot be equated with issuance of notice as contemplated
under section 149 of the Act. The date of issue would be
the date on which the same were handed over for service
to the proper officer, which in the facts of the present case
would be the date on which the said notices were actually
handed over to the post office for the purpose of booking
for the purpose of effecting service on the petitioners. Till
the point of time the envelopes are properly stamped with
adequate value of postal stamps, it cannot be stated that
the process of issue is complete. In the facts of the present
case, the impugned notices having been sent for booking
to the Speed Post Centre only on 7-4-2010, the date of
issue of the said notices would be 7-4-2010 and not 31-3-
2010, as contended on behalf of the revenue. In the
circumstances, impugned the notices under section 148 in
relation to assessment year 2003-04, having been issued
on 7-4-2010 which is clearly beyond the period of six
years from the end of the relevant assessment year, are
clearly barred by limitation and as such, cannot be
sustained.
...." (Emphasis
Supplied)
The Gujarat High Court categorically held that it is on the date of
despatch of the section 148 notice that the same will be held to be
issued for the purpose of section 149 of the Act of 1961.
25.8. The Madras High Court in Smt. Parveen Amin Bhathara
(supra), after approving the dicta of Kanubhai Patel (supra) and
considering section 282 of the Act of 1961 and rule 127 of IT
Rules, held as under:
"....
8. In the present case, the respondent reopened the
assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 2011-
12, through notice dated 31-3-2018 under section 148 of
the Act. Admittedly, the limitation period of six years for
reopening the assessment, came to an end on 31-3-2018.
The main plank of contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the notice under section 148 of the Act
dated 31-3-2018 has been received by the appellant
through e-mail only on 18-4-2018 i.e, after the expiry of
six years from the end of the assessment year under
consideration and hence, the same is clearly barred by
limitation, whereas the Department contended that mere
signing of notice by the respondent on 31-3-2018 amounts
to issuance of notice under section 149 of the Act and
therefore, the same is within the limitation period.
12. In Kanubhai M. Patel v. Hiren Bhatt and others ((2011)
334 ITR 25 (Guj)), it was held by the Gujarat High Court
that "date of issuance of notice under section 148 Income-
tax Act has to be reckoned not from the date when it was
issued, but on the date when it was actually delivered on
the assessee.
....
Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid decisions that the
issuance of notice under section 149 is complete only
when the same is issued in the id decisions that bed under
section 282 r/w rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules
prescribing the mode of service of notice under the Act.
The signing of notice would not amount to issuance of
notice as contemplated under section 149 of the Act. In
other words, the requirement of issuance of notice under
section 149 is not mere signing of the notice under section
148, but is sent to the proper person within the end of the
relevant assessment year.
...." (Emphasis
Supplied)
In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
categorically rejected the submission of the Department that
signing of Notice, without despatch, would amount to issuance of
Notice as contemplated under section 149 of the Act of 1961.
25.9 The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Yuvraj (supra) similarly
dealt with a case of a Section 148 Notice dated 31st March, 2021,
which was sent by e-mail to the assessee on 16th April, 2021. The
High Court held that the Notice was issued on 16th April, 2021
and quashed the same reserving liberty to the Department to issue
a fresh Notice under section 148A of the Act of 1961, in
accordance with law. The grounds for challenging the impugned
Notice in the said case were same as have been raised herein for
challenging the impugned Notices falling under category 'A' and
'B'.
25.10. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Daujee
Abhusan Bhandar (supro), was earliest to hold that drawing up a
Notice on 31st March, 2021, and digitally signing the same, in the
absence of despatch, does not amount to issuance of Notice within
the meaning of section 149 of the Act of 1961. The High Court
after elaborately discussing the provisions of sections 282 and
282A of the Act of 1961, and the provisions of section 13 of the
Act of 2000, held that, since the impugned Notice therein though
dated 31st March, 2021, was issued through e-mail on 06th April,
2021, the same was time barred and therefore liable to be quashed.
The Court at paragraph 29 and 30 held as under:
"....
29. Thus, considering the provisions of sections 282 and
282A of the Act, 1961 and the provisions of section 13 of
the Act, 2000 and meaning of the word "issue" we find
that firstly notice shall be signed by the assessing authority
and then it has to be issued either in paper form or be
communicated in electronic form by delivering or
transmitting the copy thereof to the person therein named
by modes provided in section 282 which includes
transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section 13(1)
of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the
despatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into
computer resources outside the control of the originator.
Thus, the point of time when a digitally signed notice in
the form of electronic record is entered in computer
resources outside the control of the originator i.e. the
assessing authority that shall the date and time of issuance
of notice under section 148 read with section 149 of the
Act, 1961.
30. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that
mere digitally signing the notice is not the Issuance of
notice. Since the impugned notice under section 148 of the
Act, 1961 was issued to the petitioner on 6-4-2021 through
e-mail, therefore, we hold that the impugned notice under
section 148 of the Act, 1961 is time barred. Consequently,
the impugned notice is quashed.
...." (Emphasis
Supplied)
25.11 In the subsequent judgments of the Allahabad High Court in
the case of Santosh Krishna HUF (supro) and Mohan Lal
Santwani (supra) the High Court summoned the details of date and
time of triggering of e-mail by the ITBA e-mail software system to
determine the date of issuance of the e-mail attaching the Notice.
The High Court held the said date of triggering of e-mail to be the
date of issue of Section 148 Notice for the purpose of section 149
of the Act of 1961.
25.12 The review of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme
Court and the several High Courts shows that all Courts have
consistently held that the expression 'issue' in its common parlance
and its legal interpretation means that the issuer of the notice must
after drawing up the notice and signing 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 said to have been issued.
25.13 Further, a perusal of the Compliance Affidavit reveals that
while the function of generation of Notice on ITBA portal and
digital signing of the Notice is executed by the JAO, the function
of drafting of the e-mail to which the Notice is attached and
triggering the e-mail to the assessee is performed by the IIBA e-
mail software system.
Thus, mere generation of Notice on the ITBA Screen cannot in
fact or in law constitute issue of notice, whether the notice is
issued in paper form or electronic form. In case of paper form, the
notice must be despatched by post on or before 31st March 2021
and for communication in electronic form the e-mail should have
been despatched on or before 31st March 2021.
In the present writ petitions, the despatch by post and e-mail was
carried out on or after 01st April 2021 and therefore, we hold that,
the impugned Notices were not issued on 31st March 2021.
26.20 We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by
the various High Courts in Daujee Abhushan (supra), Santosh
Krishna HUF (supra), Mohan Lal Santwani (supra), Advance
Infradevelopers (P) Lad. (supra) and Yuvraj (supra), that for
determining when Notices were issued, the date and time of when
the ITBA e-mail software system is triggered and the Notices
leave the last ITBA server would be considered.
26.23 We also take judicial notice of the fact that the Department
from May, 2022, for Notices issued on or after 1st April 2021, has
considered the date and time of despatch of the notices as recorded
by the ITВА portal as the date of issuance and disregarded the date
of generation of notice Le. 31-3-2021. For notices despatched on
or after 1st April 2021, the Department, following the Supreme
Court's order in Ashish Agarwal (supra) considered the notices as
issued under section 148A of the Act of 1961. This shows that the
Department itself acknowledges and admits that the date of
generation is distinct from date of issuance and the Department
considers the despatch by ITBA Portal as the date of issue for the
purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
Finding for Notices falling under category 'C'
Since the time taken by the ITBA email software system in
triggering the e-mails is attributable to the Department, the AO is
directed to determine the date and time on which the emails were
triggered by the ITBA system server as per the ITBA records and
consider the same as the date of issuance.
Illustratively, in W.P.(C) 8994 of 2021 for the Notice dated 31st
March 2021 and digitally signed on 31st March 2021 the JAO is
directed to determine the date and time of despatch as recorded by
ITBA portal and consider the same as the date of issuance.
7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law enunciated in
the matter of Suman Jeet Agrawal (supra), I am inclined to allow this
petition. The impugned notice dated 31.03.2021(Annexure P/1) including re-
assessment order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P/6) are hereby quashed. The
respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding in
accordance with the provisions of Section 148A of Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. The issue of limitation would not come in the way of conducting proceeding.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
$iddhant
