AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal of the asse ssee is d irected against the order dated 24.01.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC , Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the addition of Rs.80,33 ,277/- made vide assessment order dated 29.1 2.2019 u/s 69 A of the Act was confirmed.
Brief facts as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.19,25,000/- in the bank acco unt during the demone tization t h t h period 9 November 2016 to 30 December 2016. It was noticed that the assessee has not filed IT R because it was a partnership fir m till 31.03 .2 016 and was dissolved on 01.04.2016 and fter 01.04.2016, it was run as a proprietorship concern of Mr . Vinod Sharma, erstwhile partner of the assessee firm. It is stated that he has duly filed the IT R for the re levant A.Y . 2017-18 and also explained the credits app earing in his bank account to the tune of Rs.80,33,277/-. However, the ld. Assessing Officer ignored all the material submitted by him and has passed the impugned order ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. C IT(A) who has allowed the appeal for statistical purposes dire cting the AO to decide the matter afresh after giving d ue opportunity o f being heard to the appellant by following the principle of natural justice. The impugned assessment order was set aside under the first proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act.
The assessee felt aggr ieved by the impugned order and challenged the same before the Tr ibunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1 . On t he facts and circumstanc es o f the cas e, and i n Law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicat e Ground 2 and wrongly remande d the matter for fresh ass es sme nt despite the assess ment order being ti me-barred a nd thus void ab i niti o.
2.On t he facts and circumstanc es o f the case, and i n Law the Ld. C IT(A) er red i n remandi ng the matt er without decidi ng on l egal ground that when t he assessment order was unsigned, renderi ng it voi d ab initio .
3.On t he facts and circumstanc es o f the case, and i n Law the L d. CTT (A) failed t o consider that the AO wrongly i nvoked Secti on 144, as the Appellant was not required to fi le ret urns due to the di ssol uti on of the Fi rm. The ass ess ment was therefore without j urisdicti on and void ab i niti o.
4.On t he facts and circumstanc es o f the case, and i n Law the Ld. C1T (A) passed the or der di sregar di ng facts and wrongl y upheld the assessment as ex-part e desp ite multiple r eplies filed by the assess ee.
5.On t he facts and circumstanc es o f the case, and i n Law the Ld. CTT(A ) has erred in s tating that t he appellant has not mad e the s ubmission before the Assessi ng Officer and failed t o note that obj ec tions to an unsi gned and ti me-barred coul d onl y b e challe nged before the CTT(A).
6.The Appellant crave s leave to add, alter, amend and/or resci nd a ny of the grounds above at the time o f or before the heari ng.”
We have heard the ld . AR who at the very outset submitted that the ld. C IT(A) has committed legality by not deciding the gro und No . 2 before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee has r aised the issue of assessment order being without valid signature. It is there fore arg ued that the impugned assessment order which was unsigned is void ab initio, therefore directing the AO to decide afresh as directed by the ld. C IT(A) is without legal sanction and the ld. C IT( A) should have allowed the appeal and quashed the assessment order. The ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee regarding assessment order in the absence of valid signature being void ab initio is square ly covered by the order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2025 (7) TMI 1742 (Del. Tr ib.) wherein a similar assessment order which was no t having digital signature was set aside being void ab initio .
The ld. DR, on the other hand, would submit that the impugned order is a perfectly legal order and no prejudice is going to be caused to the asse ssee in case all the points raised in the appeal are raised before the AO and has thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions and e xamined the material on record. We find in agreement with the ld. AR that the question o f the ground No. 2 r aised before the ld. CIT(A) pertains to the jurisdictio n exercised by the Assessing Officer not as p er law because the assessment order was not having any digital signature which was in violation of law as well as instruction issued by the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018 dated 12.02.2018 which mandates that the assessment order issued under e-assessment proceedings are mandatorily required to be digitally signed. We have noticed that the assessment order of the case before us is also having a note in the last page of the assessment or der which reads as under:
“No te: if digitally signed, the date of di gital signatures may be ta ken as dat e o f doc ument.”
The identical issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and the relevant observation of the Hon’ble Tribunal contained from para 4 onwards are extracted below as under:
“3 . Per contra, Shri Nikhi l Kumar Govila representi ng t he department vehemently opposed t he submissions m ade on be half of the assess ee. The ld. DR pray ed for time to ve rify whet her the impugned ass essment order as per Departme nts record is i n f act digit ally signed or unsi gned.
4.We have he ard the s ubmissi ons made by ri val sides and have exami ned the impugned assessment orde r. A bare per usal of the assessment order placed on rec ord by the assessee along with Form N o. 36 shows that t he same is unsi gned. On t he very first page of the assessment order , the re is a Note whic h r eads as under:-
"No te: if di gitally signed, the dat e of di gital signa tures may be ta ken as dat e o f doc ument."
5.Thus, the date of order shall be the date on which order is di gi tally signe d. In the instant case, t he signatures/di git al signatur es ar e conspi cuousl y absent. The unsigne d impugned ass essment or der is in fact no order. Duri ng the course of heari ng of appeal the l d. AR of assess ee i n the open cour t l ogged i n to t he of fi cial website of t he Inc ome Tax Department usi ng his user ID and password to show tha t t he ass essme nt or der upl oaded o n ITBA portal is also unsigned. After exami ni ng the assessment or der, dated 22.01.2025 upl oaded on the ITBA por tal, we f ind that the same is unsi gned. The ld. DR could not refute the fact that the assessment order for AY 2022-23 date d 22.01.2025 on ITBA portal is unsi gned.
6.The order /assessment order is incompl et e till the time it i s signed by t he Assessi ng Officer. Non-si gni ng of an assessment order is no t a proced ural flaw that ca n be cured subsequently aft er s ervice of same on the assessee. The ld. Co unsel for the assessee has placed relia nce on the decisi on of coordinat e Bench of t he Tri bunal in the case of R eut ers Asi a Pacific Ltd. vs. DCIT 157 taxmann.com 705 wherei n o n simil ar s et of fact s the Coordi nat e B ench held t he unsi gned assessm ent order as invalid and quas hed the same. T he relevant extract of the fi ndi ngs of t he Tribunal in the said case are as under:-
“14.Si gni ng of an assessme nt order by the Assessi ng Officer is a mandatory requi rement and not mer ely a proc edur al formality. Unless , the order is si gned i t cannot be said to be compl ete. Once the order is signed di gitally or manually, as r equir ed, t he order is compl et e and the date of signatur e on the order s hall be the date of passi ng of the order . H ere we woul d also like to refer to t he r elevant pr ovisi ons fr om t he Code of Civil Procedur e, 1908 (CPC) explai ni ng t he requirement of signi ng the j udgments. Or der-XX R ul e 3 of CPC mandates that the judgment shall be dat ed and si gned by the Judge at the time o f pr onouncing i t and when once signed, shal l not aft erwards be al tered. The si gni ng of an or der is thus , not a mere formality , it is a mandator y requirement. It i s not a curabl e proc edur al defec t that c an be fixed b y si gni ng t he order after service of the same on the assess ee. If an unsi gned order or noti ce is ser ved on the assessee, the same is i nvalid.
15.The frami ng of a n assess ment is a quasi-judicial function. The assess ment order pass ed by t he Assessi ng Officer is subjec t t o j udicial scruti ny by hi gher Appellate Aut horities. Therefore, the s aid or der has to be i n conf ormity with t he provisions of the Act in ever y r espect , be it li mitation, the j urisdicti on of the officer passing the said order or signi ng and servic e of the order.
16.xxxxxx
17.Lastly, the R evenue has tri ed to tak e s helt er under section 292B of the Act. T he said section cur es t he proc edur al defects or omissi ons. The sec tio n does not grant immunity fr om non-compliance of statutory provisions. Non signi ng of an assessment order is not a proc edural flaw t hat can be c ured subs equentl y. The order is complete only when it i s signed a nd rel eased. The dat e on whi c h t he o rder is signed by t he Assessi ng Officer is t he da te of or der. If Revenue's c ontenti on i s accepted and the Assessi ng Officer is allowed to si gn the assessment order now co nsideri ng it to be proc edur al deficiency, still the order woul d suffer from the defect of li mitation and would be wit hout jurisdictio n.
18.In t he cas e of Vijay Corporation (supr a), the C o-ordi na te Benc h i n a case where t he assess ment order served on the assess ee was no t si gned by t he Assessi ng Officer, held tha t requireme nt of signat ur e of the Assessing Officer is a legal requi rem ent. The omission to si gn the order of assessm ent cannot be cured by relying o n t he provisions of secti on 292B of the Ac t a nd held the order i nvalid.
19.Ergo, i n fac ts of the case a nd doc uments on rec ord, we hold t he unsigned impugne d ass essme nt order ser ved on the ass essee i nval id and quash t he same.”
7.In facts of the instant cas e and in the light of t he decisi on of t he coordi nate B ench, we hold unsi gned assessment order as no nest and invalid, henc e, the sa me is quased.
8.In the res ul t, a ppeal of the asses see is allowed.”
We have examined the factual matrix before us and are of the considered opinion that the fact and circumstances of the case before us are squarely covered by the order of the ld. co-ordinate bench as referred and relied by the ld. AR before us and respectfully follow ing the decision of the Tr ibunal, we are of the considered opinion that the unsigned asse ssment order is non-est and invalid, he nce, the same is quashed .
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.