Section 148 notices dispatched after March 31, 2021, require mandatory compliance with Section 148A procedure.

The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act"), and the subsequent re-assessment order

The petitioner contended that the notice was issued after the cut-off date of April 1, 2021, meaning the Revenue was mandated to follow the new procedure prescribed under Section 148A of the Act

The Revenue argued that the notice was dispatched on March 31, 2021, and therefore complied with the old regime

However, records from the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal showed the notice was issued on April 1, 2021, at 12:19:37 hours

The court applied Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the procedure for re-assessment

It relied on the Delhi High Court precedent in Suman Jeet Agrawal v. Income-tax Officer [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11, which defines the "issuance" of a notice

The core legal principle established is that "issue" requires an overt act of "despatch" where the notice leaves the control of the authority; mere generation or digital signing of a notice on the ITBA portal does not constitute issuance until the email is triggered or the document is posted

The court examined the ITBA portal's technical logs, which conclusively proved that the notice was dispatched on April 1, 2021

The court rejected the Revenue's claim that signing the notice on March 31 was sufficient.

Applying the Suman Jeet Agrawal doctrine, the court reasoned that since the electronic record was transmitted to the computer resources of the assessee after the March 31, 2021 deadline, the notice fell under the new regime governed by the Finance Act, 2021

Consequently, the failure of the Revenue to provide a pre-notice inquiry or a show-cause notice as required by Section 148A rendered the entire proceeding procedurally flawed

The court held that the Revenue must comply with Section 148A for any notices issued on or after April 1, 2021

The respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with Section 148A, and the court directed that the issue of limitation would not impede such fresh proceedings