Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act; 1961

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• “(i) Whether digitally signing notice would automatically amount to issuance of notice ? (ii) Whether digitally signing a notice and issuing it are two different acts ? (iii) Whether issuance of notice shall take place on the date and time when it is dispatched either electronically or through other mode ? (iv) Whether merely generating notice from the Departmental Portal on 31.3.2021 and digitally signing it thereafter, would amount to issuance of notice ? 20. Thus, after digitally signing the notice the income tax authority has to issue it to the assessee either in paper form or through electronic mail. Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Act 2000 provides that dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator. The aforesaid sub Section (1) of Section 13 indicates the point of time of issuance of notice. Therefore, after…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

A.F.R. Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 78 of 2022 Petitioner :- Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard Sri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, who on our request assisted the Court as Amicus curiae and also heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, and Sri Kapil Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior standing counsel for the respondents i.e. Income Tax Department. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a regular assessee. It filed its return of Income under Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1961”) on 29.09.2013 for the Assessment Year 2013 – 14 and the assessment was completed. 3. Subsequently, the Assessing Authority attempted to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. For this purpose, a notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was the assesses through e-mail and e-mail was undisputedly received by the petitioner on his registered e-mail I .D. on 06.04.2021. The limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Act, 1961 was upto 31.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 4. Under the circumstances, the petitioner filed objections before the Assessing Authority. One of the objections raised by the petitioner was

that the notice is time barred and thus without jurisdiction as it was issued on 06.04.2021 whereas the limitation for issuing notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Act 1961 expired on 31.03.2021. The objection filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Assessing Authority holding that since the notice was digitally signed on 31.03.2021, therefore, it shall be deemed to have been issued within time i.e. on 31.03.2021. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, Dt.31.03.2021; and the connected proceedings for reassessment of Income for A.Y.

2013-14. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or an order prohibiting the operation of the proceedings initiated by the respondent number 2”. 6. Yesterday, this writ petition was hard at length and following questions were framed for determination :- “(i) Whether digitally signing notice would automatically amount to issuance of notice ? (ii) Whether digitally signing a notice and issuing it are two different acts ? (iii) Whether issuance of notice shall take place on the date and time when it is dispatched either electronically or through other mode ? (iv) Whether merely generating notice from the Departmental Portal on 31.3.2021 and digitally signing it thereafter, would amount to issuance of notice ?

(v) Even if it is assumed that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 31.3.2022 and despatched on 6.4.2022 then whether the unamended provision of Section 148 or amended provision of Section 148 would apply ?” 7. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, only question nos. (i) (ii) (iii) & (iv), as aforequoted, are being decided and the question No. (v) is left open.

Submissions 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that digitally signing a notice is an act different from the act of issuing the notice. Section 149 provides limitation for issuance of the notice under section 148. When the notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Assessing Authority beyond the period of limitation i.e. after. 31.03.2021, therefore, the notice is time barred and no proceeding can be carried by the Assessing Authority pursuant to the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 9. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the provisions of Sections 148, 149, 282(1)(c) and 282 A of the Act, 1961 and Rule 127 A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1962”) and some definition clauses, Sections 3 and 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2000”.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of Gujrat High Court in Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office (2011) 12 taxmann.com 198 (Guj.) ( paras 15, 15.1 & 16) and the judgment of this court dated 28.08.2017 in Writ Tax No. 822 of 2016 (Smt. Kusum Agarwal Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Agra And Another). 11. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that issue of notice means, the date on which the notice is digitally signed by the Assessing Authority. Since the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 has been signed by the Assessing Authority on 31.03.2021 i.e. well within the period of limitation, therefore, the impugned notice is wholly valid and the writ petition is not maintainable.

Revenue / respondent submissions

Conclusion No.(4) of the Tribunal has to be deemed to be accepted in Jankiraman only in this manner. 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.

This is the sense in which the word 'issue' was used in the expression 'charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee', in para 17 of the decision in Jankiraman.” 28. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. CH. Gandhi (2013) 5SCC 111(para 19) Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the meaning of word “issue” in the context of a service matter and reiterated its earlier judgment in the case of H.C. Khurana (supra) observing as under :- “19. Be it noted, in the said case, the decision rendered in Union of India and others v. K.V . Jankiraman and others [(1991) 4 SCC 109] was explained by stating thus: – “13. … 'The word ‘issued’ used in this context in Jankiraman it is urged by learned counsel for the respondent, means service on the employee.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

mail body itself, or is printed on the attachment to the e-mail, if the notice or other document is in the attachment and the e-mail, is issued from the designated e-mail address of such income tax authority. Thus, the issuance of notice and other document would take place when the email is issued from the designated e-mail address of the concerned income tax authority. 18. Since Section 149 of the Act 1961 requires notice to be issued by Income Tax Authority, therefore, in terms of sub Section (1) of Section 282 A it has to be signed by that authority and to be issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with procedure prescribed.

Therefore, after a notice is digitally signed and when it is entered by the income tax authority in computer resource outside his control i.e. the control of the originator then that point of time would be the time of issuance of notice.

A writ or notice is issued when it is put in proper form and placed in an officer’ s hands for service, at the time it becomes a perfected process. “Any process may be considered “issued” if made out and placed in the hands of a person authorised to serve it, and with a bona fide intent to have it served.” 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.

We are unable to read Jankiraman in this manner. 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.'” 29. Thus, considering the provisions of Section 282 and 282 A 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.

13(1) of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when a 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 06.04.2021 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. 31. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 10.3.2022/vkg

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India concerns “(i) whether digitally signing notice would automatically amount to issuance of notice ? (ii) whether digitally signing a notice and issuing it are two different acts ? (iii) whether issuance of notice shall take place on the date and time when it is dispatched either electronically or through other mode ? (iv) whether merely generating notice from the departmental portal on 31.3.2021 and digitally signing it thereafter, would amount to issuance of notice ? 20. thus, after digitally signing the notice the income tax authority has to issue it to the assessee either in paper form or through electronic mail. sub-section (1) of section 13 of the act 2000 provides that dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator. the aforesaid sub section (1) of section 13 indicates the point of time of issuance of notice. therefore, after… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. - 78 of 2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: “(i) Whether digitally signing notice would automatically amount to issuance of notice ? (ii) Whether digitally signing a notice and issuing it are two different acts ? (iii) Whether issuance of notice shall take place on the date and time when it is dispatched either electronically or through other mode ? (iv) Whether merely generating notice from the Departmental Portal on 31.3.2021 and digitally signing it thereafter, would amount to issuance of notice ? 20. Thus, after digitally signing the notice the income tax authority has to issue it to the assessee either in paper form or through electronic mail. Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Act 2000 provides that dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator. The aforesaid sub Section (1) of Section 13 indicates the point of time of issuance of notice. Therefore, after… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act; 1961—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act; 1961 and the decision date 2022-03-10; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 78 of 2022, and the decision is dated 2022-03-10. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Banerji. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act; 1961. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 1961 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• S R Cold Storage v. UOI and Others (Allahabad High Court) — Allahabad High Court · Quashed / set aside
• Nabco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and others (Allahabad High Court) — Allahabad High Court · Quashed / set aside
• Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. UOI (Allahabad High Court) — Allahabad High Court · Quashed / set aside
• Ajay Bhandari v. Union of India (Allahabad High Court) — Allahabad High Court · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Reassessment & Reopening

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY