# Smt. Sunita Khare & Ors v. Jabbar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 140
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-02
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1481 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sunita-khare-ors-v-jabbar-anr-49009
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 173-Enhancement of compensationdeceased was above 40 years and was
Head-Cashier in bank earning a sum of Rs.
3,09,356/-per annum after tax deductionTribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,01,985/-
together with interest @ 6% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss of
income-the-By applying the multiplier of 14,
the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.
37,53,512/-apart from that, Rs. 1,00,000/-
awarded under non-pecuniary heads-After
deducting
50%
towards
contributory
negligence,
claimant
held
entitled
for
increase of compensation a sum of Rs.
19,27,000/- with 7.5% interest from Rs.
12,01,985/- @ 6% per annum. (Paras 1 to
16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

70. The case of the convicts/
appellants be considered for remission by
the
State
after
completing
therein
incarceration period of 14 years as per the
judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 308/2022
(Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P.) arising
out of S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 4633 of 2021 and
the judgement of this High Court passed in
Vishnu Vs. State of U.P. being Criminal
Appeal No. 204 of 2021.

71. Let the lower Court record be
transmitted back along with the certified
copy of this judgement for information and
necessary compliance.

72. Certify this judgement to the
Court below immediately for necessary
action.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 140
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1481 of 2016

Smt. Sunita Khare & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jabbar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Avinash Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Aditya Singh Parihar

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 173-Enhancement of compensationdeceased was above 40 years and was
Head-Cashier in bank earning a sum of Rs.
3,09,356/-per annum after tax deductionTribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,01,985/-
together with interest @ 6% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss of
income-the-By applying the multiplier of 14,
the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.
37,53,512/-apart from that, Rs. 1,00,000/-
awarded under non-pecuniary heads-After
deducting
50%
towards
contributory
negligence,
claimant
held
entitled
for
increase of compensation a sum of Rs.
19,27,000/- with 7.5% interest from Rs.
12,01,985/- @ 6% per annum. (Paras 1 to
16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs DTC & anr.. (2009)
ACJ 1298

2. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Renu
Singh & ors. FAFO No. 1818 of 2012

3. Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330

4. Jacob Mathew Vs St. of Punj. (2005) 0 ACJ
SC 1849

5. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
(2013) 3 TAC 6 SC

6. NICL Vs Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) LawSuit
(SC) 1093

7. NICL Vs Mannat Johal & ors. (2019 ) 2 TAC
705 SC

8. A.V. Padma & ors. Vs R. Venugopal (2012) 3
SCC 378

9. A.V. Padma & ors. Vs R. Venugopal (2012) 3
SCC 378

10. Gen. Mgr. KSRTC Trivandrum Vs Susamma
Thomas & ors. (1994) AIR SC 1631

11. O.I.C. Ltd. Vs Chief Commr of Income
Tax(TDS) R/Spl. Civil Appl. No. 4800 of 2021

12. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I.
& ors.
9 All. Smt. Sunita Khare & Ors. Vs. Jabbar & Anr.
141
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and award dated
26.05.2012 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Court No.9, Saharanpur
(hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal') in
M.A.C.P. No. 210 of 2010 (Smt. Sunita
Khera and Others Vs. Jabbar and another),
by which the learned Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.12,01,985/- with 6% per
annum simple rate of interest. Learned
Tribunal also held contributory negligence
to the tune of 50% of each of the drivers,
involved in the accident.

2. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that a claim petition was filed by
appellants-claimants on account of death of
Ram Kumar Khera with the averments that
on 10.05.2010, the deceased was going on
motorcycle No. UP 11B 9754, driving
himself,
at
a
moderate
speed
from
Saharanpur to his house Yamunanagar. At
about 7:00 pm when he reached near Bajaj
Agency from Sarsawa, a truck Tata 407
bearing No.11 T 1174 came from opposite
direction. This truck was being driven
rashly and negligently and at a high speed
by its driver. The truck driver hit the
motorcycle of the deceased after coming
from the wrong side in order to overtake a
three wheeler. In this accident, Ram Kumar
Khera sustained serious injuries. He was
admitted to District Hospital, Saharanpur,
where he was declared dead by the doctor.
The age of the deceased was 39-40 years
and he was working in Punjab National
Bank as Head Cashier.

3. Heard Shri Avinash Pandey, learned
counsel for the appellants-claimants and
Shri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel
for the Insurance Company-respondent.
Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants has submitted that learned
Tribunal has held that drivers of truck and
motorcycle
were
guilty
of
50%
contributory negligence. Learned counsel
submitted that this finding of learned
Tribunal cannot be sustained because there
is no evidence on record with regard to the
fact that the deceased was also co-author of
the accident. Plea of the contributory
negligence,
taken
by
the
insurance
company, is not proved. It is further
submitted that at the time of accident, the
truck driver was driving at a high speed and
in order to overtake a three wheeler, the
truck came from wrong side and hit the
motorcycle of the deceased. In this way, the
truck driver was solely negligent but
learned Tribunal erroneously held the
deceased also negligent to the tune of 50%
while there is no basis on which the learned
Tribunal has fixed the percentage of the
negligence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants next submitted that learned
Tribunal has not calculated the amount of
compensation in a right way because the
deceased was serving in Punjab National
Bank as a Head Cashier and at the time of
his death in an accident his income was
nearly Rs.35,000/- per annum but learned
Tribunal has assessed the income on lower
side. Learned counsel for the appellants
also submitted that the income of the
deceased is proved by witness PW6 but his
testimony was wrongly disbelieved by the
Tribunal. It is also submitted that learned
Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards
future loss of income and no reason for it is
assigned in the impugned judgement. It is
next
submitted
that
non-pecuniary
damages, awarded by the Tribunal, are on
lower side and not in consonance with the
settled law.
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
insurance company submitted that learned
Tribunal has rightly held the deceased
guilty of contributory negligence to the
tune of 50% because it is proved on record
that both the vehicles i.e. truck and
motorcycle met with accident in the middle
of road from opposite direction. In fact, it
was head-on collision. Learned counsel
vehemently argued that the truck driver is
examined by insurance company as DW1
and the driver has deposed that at the time
of accident, the deceased was coming from
opposite direction and there were other
bikers riding other bikes with him and all
of them were involved in racing and the
deceased lost balance of his motorcycle and
dashed into the rear wheel of the truck.
Learned counsel further submitted that in
fact the accident had taken place due to
sole negligence of the deceased. Learned
counsel drew our attention towards siteplan also and submitted that site plan also
goes to show that the accident had taken
place in the middle of the road and not at
the rear portion of the truck. It is submitted
that learned Tribunal has not committed
any error in holding the deceased also
negligent.

7. With regard to the quantum of
compensation, learned counsel for the
insurance company submitted that PW6
was not rightly believed by learned
Tribunal because he appeared before the
Tribunal to prove the salary of the deceased
but without original record and moreover
the learned Tribunal has committed no
mistake in relying upon the copy of the
acknowledgment of the income tax return.
Learned counsel for the insurance company
very fairly admitted that no reason has been
assigned by the learned Tribunal for not
granting the future prospects but submitted
that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of
15 which should have been of 14 as per the
settled law in the case of Sarla Verma and
Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298.

8. This appeal has been preferred
mainly on two grounds, one for challenging
contributory negligence attributed to the
deceased and second on the issue of
quantum of compensation awarded.

9. The controversy as to whose
negligence was there in commission of
accident has to be decided. The term
negligence has to be viewed from the
perspective of the law laid down till date.

10. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence
can be both intentional or accidental which
is normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
must always prove that the either side is
negligent. If the injury rather death is
caused by something owned or controlled
by the negligent party then he is directly
liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa
loquitur" meaning thereby "the things
speak for itself" would apply.

11. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or
author of the accident would be liable for
his contribution to the accident having
taken place.

12. The Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of
2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others)
decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under :
9 All. Smt. Sunita Khare & Ors. Vs. Jabbar & Anr.
143

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden
of proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection
where two roads cross each other, it is the
duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down
and if driver did not slow down at
intersection, but continued to proceed at a
high speed without caring to notice that
another vehicle was crossing, then the
conduct of driver necessarily leads to
conclusion that vehicle was being driven by
him rashly as well as negligently.

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor
Vehicle
Act
contain
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every
intersection or junction of roads or at a
turning of the road. It is also provided that
driver of the vehicle should not enter
intersection or junction of roads unless he
makes sure that he would not thereby
endanger
any
other
person.
Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down vehicle as he approaches intersection
of roads, particularly when he could have
easily seen, that the car over which
deceased was riding, was approaching
intersection.

19. In view of the fast and
constantly increasing volume of traffic,
motor vehicles upon roads may be regarded
to some extent as coming within the
principle of liability defined in Rylands
V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From
the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of
this country have been rendered by the use
of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit
and run' cases where drivers of motor
vehicles who have caused accidents, are
unknown. In fact such cases are increasing
in number. Where a pedestrian without
negligence on his part is injured or killed
by a motorist, whether negligently or not,
he or his legal representatives, as the case
may be, should be entitled to recover
damages if principle of social justice
should have any meaning at all.

20. These provisions (section
110A and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are
not merely procedural provisions. They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species,
new in its quality, new in its principles. In
every way it was new. The right given to
legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an application for compensation for death
due to a motor vehicle accident is an
enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged
in by limitations of an action under Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob
Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0
ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. By the above process, the
burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on
the defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."

 (Emphasis added )

13. It is not disputed that the accident
had taken place when, the vehicles
involved were coming from opposite
directions and colluded in middle of the
road. Although the site-plan is relied on by
the insurance company and Tribunal cannot
be disputed so as to show the place of
accident, which is middle of the road. The
driver of the truck Adesh Tyagi has
deposed as DW1. He has appeared before
the learned Tribunal and deposed in his
testimony he has opined that at the time of
accident, the deceased was coming on
motorcycle from opposite direction and
some other boys were also riding vehicles
along with the deceased and all these bikers
were involved in racing activity. It is
deposed by DW1 that in the process of the
racing, the deceased lost his control and
dashed his motorcycle in the rear wheel of
the truck. Keeping in view the evidence on
record, we are in agreement with the
finding of learned Tribunal with regard to
the negligence of the deceased and we do
not disturb the finding that the driver of
truck and deceased both were co-authors of
the accident and were negligent to the tune
of 50% each.

Compensation:-

14. The issue so as to grant of
quantum of compensation, has to be reevaluated. It is not disputed that at the time
of death, the deceased was serving in bank
as a Head Cashier meaning thereby he was
a salaried person. Learned Tribunal has
held that PW6 has not produced original
record before the Tribunal to prove the
salary of the deceased. Although the
standard of proof in motor accident claim
case is not as strict as in civil suit or
criminal
trials
but
to
prove
the
income/salary of the deceased, official
record must be brought before the learned
Tribunal. In this case, learned Tribunal has
mentioned in impugned judgement that
PW6 did not produce the original record
and admitted that he has not brought the
original record. But learned Tribunal took
the holistic view and relied on the copy of
the acknowledgment of the income tax
return of the deceased for the assessment
year 2009-10. The income tax return is
authentic documentary proof of the income.
Learned Tribunal deducted the amount of
9 All. Smt. Sunita Khare & Ors. Vs. Jabbar & Anr.
145
income tax from the gross income and
considered the annual income of the
deceased at Rs.2,36,357/-, but learned
Tribunal
has
relied
on
the
acknowledgement of the income tax return
which is not even signed and not disclosing
the period. We find on record the best
document to be relied on in connection
with income of a salaried person, which is
known as Form-16, which is issued by
Punjab National Bank, Islam Nagar, where
the deceased was an employee, which is
paper No.79-C on record. The perusal of
the aforesaid Form-16 shows that it
pertains to the period from 01.04.2009 to
31.03.2010. This is the relevant period for
assessment of income of the deceased
because the death of the deceased had taken
place
on
10.05.2010.
The
aforesaid
document shows gross income of salary at
Rs.3,14,236/- and Rs.4880/- was deducted
towards income tax. No other amount
except income tax could be deducted in the
light of the judgement of Apex Court in
Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore
Dan and Others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (SC).
Hence, the learned Tribunal has lost the
sight and did not consider the Form-16 of
the deceased, which is the mirror of his
actual annual income, reflecting the tax
component also. Hence, the annual income
of the deceased at Rs.3,14,236 - Rs.4,880 =
Rs.3,09,356/-.

15. Learned Tribunal has not awarded
any sum for future prospects and no reason
is assigned for non-granting the same.
Learned counsel for the insurance company
has vehemently submitted that at the time
of accident the age of the deceased was
above 40 years. The original educational
certificate of the deceased is available on
record in which his date of birth is
mentioned as 21.01.1970. The accident had
taken place on 10.05.2010 and, hence, at
the time of accident, the age of the
deceased
was
above
40
years
and
undoubtedly he was Head Cashier in
Punjab National Bank. In the light of
judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017
LawSuit (SC) 1093, 30% would be added
towards future loss of income. Learned
Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 for
personal expenses of the deceased with
which we concur because he was survived
by three dependents. Learned Tribunal has
applied multiplier of 15 but as per
judgement of Sarla Verma and others
(supra) as the age of the deceased was
within the bracket of 40-45 years, the
multiplier of 14 will be applied. Apart from
it, in the light of judgement of Pranay Sethi
(supra) appellants would be entitled to get
Rs.15,000/-
for
loss
of
estate
and
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. The wife
of the deceased would also be entitled to
get Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium.
Hence appellants-claimants will be entitled
to Rs.15000+15000+40000= Rs.70,000/-
towards non-pecuniary heads with 10%
increase for every three years. We fix lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under nonpecuniary heads.

16. Hence, the total amount of
compensation, payable to the appellantclaimants is computed herein below:-

(i) Annual income : Rs.3,09,356/-

(ii)
Percentage
towards
future
prospects : 30% namely Rs.92,806/-

(iii) Total income : Rs.4,02,162/-

(iv) Income after deduction of 1/3rd:
Rs.4,02,162 - Rs.1,34,054= Rs.2,68,108/-

(v) Multiplier applicable : 14

(vi) Loss of dependency: Rs.2,68,108/-
X 14 = Rs.37,53,512/-

(vii) Amount under non pecuniary
head : Rs.1,00,000/-
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(viii)
Total
compensation:
Rs.37,53,512/-
+
1,00,000/-
=
Rs.
Rs.38,53,512/-

(ix)Amount
after
50%
deduction
towards contributory negligence : Rs.
38,53,5012/- - 19,26,756 = Rs.19,27,000 /-
(round off)

17. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as
under:

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

18. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate
of interest as 6% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

19. We deem it fit to rely on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
A.V.
Padma
and
others
Vs.
R.
Venugopal, 2012 (3) SCC 378 wherein the
Apex Court has considered the judgment
rendered in General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum
Vs. Susamma Thomas and others, AIR
1994 SC 1631 for disbursement.

20. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma (supra), the order of investment is
not passed because claimants are neither
illiterate nor rustic villagers.

21. Recently the Gujarat High Court
in case titled the Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax (TDS), R/Special Civil Application
No.4800 of 2021 decided on 05.04.2022, it
is held that interest awarded by the tribunal
or appellate court under Section 171 of
Motor Vehicles Act is not taxable under the
Income Tax Act, 1961.

22. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company
Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others
vide order dated 27.1.2022, as the purpose of
keeping compensation is to safeguard the
interest of the claimants. As 12 years have
elapsed since occurrence of accident, the
amount be deposited in the Saving Account
of claimants in Nationalized Bank. The
amount shall be credited in the said account
with without investment as the case may be.

23. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award passed
by the learned Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-
Insurance Company shall deposit the amount
within a period of 12 weeks from today with
interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the amount is
deposited. The amount already deposited be
deducted from the amount to be deposited.

24. Record be transmitted to Tribunal.
----------
9 All. Vikas Gupta Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
147
(2022) 9 ILRA 147
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ Tax No. 554 of 2022
with
other connected cases

Vikas Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ankur Agarwal, Sri Ankur Agarwal, Sri
Ashish Bansal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Mahajan, Sri Krishna
Agarawal, Sri Praveen Kumar

A. Tax Law - Reassessment - Income
Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 147, 148, 151 &
282A - Information Technology Act,
2000 - Sections 2(d), 2(p) & 2(t) -
General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section
3(56).

Assumption of jurisdiction - Unsigned
Approval - Sub-section (1) of S.282A
contains
the
following
necessary
conditions:

(i) such notice or other document shall
be signed by that Authority and
(ii)
issued
in
paper
form
or
communicated in electronic form by that
authority
(iii) in accordance with such procedure
as may be prescribed. (Para 16)

Words and Phrases - (a)'and' - The word
"and" should normally be given its ordinary
meaning
and
should
be
understood
in
conjunctive sense.
The first and foremost condition u/s 282A(1) is
that notice or other document to be issued by
any income-tax authority shall be signed by that
authority. The word "and" has been used in
sub-section (1), in conjunctive sense
meaning thereby that such notice or other
document has first to be signed by the
authority and thereafter it may be issued
either
in
paper
form
or
may
be
communicated in electronic form by that
authority. In the present set of facts, it is the
admitted case of the respondents that the PCIT
has
not
recorded
satisfaction
under
his
signature prior to the issuance of notice by the
Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Act, 1961. (Para
18, 19, 27)

(b) 'Signed' - General Clauses Act, 1897:
Section 3(56) - 'sign', with its grammatical
variations and cognate expressions, shall, with
reference to a person who is unable to write his
name, include 'mark', with its grammatical
variations and cognate expressions. As per
Webster's New World Dictionary, the word
"sign" means "to write one's name on, as in
acknowledging authorship, authorising action
etc." (Para 20, 21)

(c) 'shall be signed' - The expression
"shall be signed" used in S.282A(1) of the
Act, 1961 makes the signing of the notice
or other document by that authority a
mandatory
requirement. It is
not a
ministerial act or an empty formality
which can be dispensed with. (Para 23)

"Signed" means to sign one's name; to signify
assent or adhesion to by signing one's name; to
attest by signing or when a person is unable to
write his name then affixation of "mark" by such
person: The document must be signed or mark
must be affixed in such a way as to make it
appear that the person signing it or affixing his
mark is the author of it. Therefore, a notice or
other document as referred in S.282A(1) of the
Act, 1961 will take legal effect only after it is
signed by that income-tax authority, whether
physically or digitally. The usage of the word
"shall" make it a mandatory requirement. (Para
22, 23, 25, 28)

B. Validity of recording satisfaction u/s
151 by the Commissioner for the purposes