OUTSYSTEMS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(2) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 22.01.2025 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The solitary issue raised by the assessee before us is that the assessment order dated 22.01.2025 communicated to the assessee is unsigned, hence, it is not an order. Shri Ajit Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee narrating facts of the case submitted that initially the assessee received an assessment order dated 10.01.2025 signed manually. The assessee has filed separate appeal assailing the said assessment order. Thereafter, impugned assessment order was served on the (AY 2022-23) assessee. The subsequent assessment order is unsigned. He further pointed that the initial assessment order dated 10.01.2025 was issued by another Assessing Officer (AO), whereas, the unsigned assessment order has been issued by different Assessing Officer. He asserted that unsigned assessment order is nonest, hence, is not an order in eye of law. He placed reliance on CBDT Instructions No. 1/2018 dated 12.02.2018 which mandates that the assessment orders issued under e- assessment proceedings are mandatorily required to be digitally signed.

Per contra, Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila representing the department vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The ld. DR prayed for time to verify whether the impugned assessment order as per Departments record is in fact digitally signed or unsigned.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the impugned assessment order. A bare perusal of the assessment order placed on record by the assessee along with Form No. 36 shows that the same is unsigned. On the very first page of the assessment order, there is a Note which reads as under:- "Note: if digitally signed, the date of digital signatures may be taken as date of document."

Thus, the date of order shall be the date on which order is digitally signed. In the instant case, the signatures/digital signatures are conspicuously absent. The unsigned impugned assessment order is in fact no order. During the course of hearing of appeal the ld. AR of assessee in the open court logged in to the official website of the Income Tax Department using his user ID and password to show that the assessment order uploaded on ITBA portal is also unsigned. After examining the assessment order, dated 22.01.2025 uploaded on the ITBA portal, we find that the (AY 2022-23) same is unsigned. The ld. DR could not refute the fact that the assessment order for AY 2022-23 dated 22.01.2025 on ITBA portal is unsigned.

The order/assessment order is incomplete till the time it is signed by the Assessing Officer. Non-signing of an assessment order is not a procedural flaw that can be cured subsequently after service of same on the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. vs. DCIT 157 taxmann.com 705 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.

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 (AY 2022-23) 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.

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.

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.”

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 quased.