AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The Assessee has challenged the Final Assessment order dated 30/06/2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) dated 30/06/2022.
The Ld. Assessee's Representative at the outset submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13) dated 30/06/2022 which is impugned in the present appeal is deserves to be quashed as there is no signature either digital or manual found in the Final Assessment Order. Thus, submitted that the impugned assessment order is unauthenticated, therefore, the same is in violation and non-est and deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Final Assessment Order has been passed in accordance with law. The Ground No. 2 of the Assessee is hyper technical one which deserves to be dismissed. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have gone through the Final Assessment Order dated 30/06/2022 produced by the Assessee and found that the Assessment Order does not contains the signature of the officer who passed the said assessment order.
In an identical situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation reported in (2025) 176 Taxmann.com 954 (Del-Trib) held that non singing of an assessment order is not a procedure flaw that can be cured,subsequently after service of the same on the Assessee. Thus, held that such Assessment Order becomes non-est and invalid. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is as under:-
“The order/assessment order is incomplete till the time it is signed by the Assessing Officer. Non-signing of assessee. The Id. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of coordinate Bench of the an assessment order is not a procedural flaw that can be cured subsequently after service of same on the Tribunal in the case of Reuters Asia Pacific Lid v. Dy. CIT, International Tax [2023] 157 taxmann.com 705/[2024] 205 ITD 31 (Mum - Trib.) wherein on similar set of facts the Coordinate Bench held the unsigned assessment order as invalid and quashed the same. The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal in the said case are as under:-
14.Signing of an assessment order by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory requirement and not merely a procedural formality. Unless, the order is signed it cannot be said to be complete. Once the order is signed digitally or manually, as required, the order is complete and the date of signature on the order shall be the date of passing of the order. Here we would also like to refer to the relevant provisions from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) explaining the requirement of signing the judgments. Order-XX Rule 3 of CPC mandates that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge at the time of pronouncing it and when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered. The signing of an order is thus, not a mere formality, it is a mandatory requirement. It is not a curable procedural defect that can be fixed by signing the order after service of the same on the assessee. If an unsigned order or notice is served on the assessee, the same is invalid.
15.The framing of an assessment is a quasi-judicial function. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is subject to judicial scrutiny by higher Appellate Authorities. Therefore, the said order has to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act in every respect, be it limitation, the jurisdiction of the officer passing the said order or signing and service of the order.
16.xxxxxx
17.Lastly, the Revenue has tried to take shelter under section 292B of the Act. The said section cures the procedural defects or omissions. The section does not grant immunity from non-compliance of statutory provisions. Non signing of an assessment order is not a procedural flaw that can be cured subsequently. The order is complete only when it is signed and released. The date on which the order is signed by the Assessing Officer is the date of order. If Revenue's contention is accepted and the Assessing Officer is allowed to sign the assessment order now considering it to be procedural deficiency, still the order would suffer from the defect of limitation and would be without jurisdiction.
18.In the case of Vijay Corporation (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench in a case where the assessment order served on the assessee was not signed by the Assessing Officer, held that requirement of signature of the Assessing Officer is a legal requirement. The omission to sign the order of assessment cannot be cured by relying on the provisions of section 292B of the Act and held the order invalid.
19.Ergo, in facts of the case and documents on record, we hold the unsigned impugned assessment order served on the assessee invalid and quash the same."
7.In facts of the instant case and in the light of the decision of the coordinate Bench, we hold unsigned assessment order as nonest and invalid, hence, the same is quashed.”
In view of the above, we hold that the unsigned impugned Assessment Order is a non-est and the same is illegal. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order dated 30/06/2022 is herby quashed.
In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.