KITCHEN KREATION,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 1412/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Kitchen Kreation, Vs Income Tax Officer, G-36, Palam Extn., Sector-7, Ward-43(5), New Delhi-110075 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAMFK0057H Assessee by: Ms. Sanya Khurana, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 21.08.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed 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 29.12.2019 u/s 69A of the Act was confirmed.

2 ITA No. 1412/Del/2025 Kitchen Kreation concern of Mr. Vinod Sharma, erstwhile partner of the assessee firm. It is stated that he has duly filed the ITR for the relevant A.Y. 2017-18 and also explained the credits appearing 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.

3 ITA No. 1412/Del/2025 Kitchen Kreation required to file returns due to the dissolution of the Firm. The assessment was therefore without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law the Ld. C1T(A) passed the order disregarding facts and wrongly upheld the assessment as ex-parte despite multiple replies filed by the assessee. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law the Ld. CTT(A) has erred in stating that the appellant has not made the submission before the Assessing Officer and failed to note that objections to an unsigned and time-barred could only be challenged before the CTT(A). 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or rescind any of the grounds above at the time of or before the hearing.” 5. We have heard the ld. AR who at the very outset submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has committed legality by not deciding the ground No. 2 before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee has raised the issue of assessment order being without valid signature. It is therefore argued that the impugned assessment order which was unsigned is void ab initio, therefore directing the AO to decide afresh as directed by the ld. CIT(A) is without legal sanction and the ld. CIT(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 squarely covered by the order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2025 (7) TMI 1742 (Del. Trib.) wherein a similar assessment

4 ITA No. 1412/Del/2025 Kitchen Kreation order which was not having digital signature was set aside being void ab initio.

5 ITA No. 1412/Del/2025 Kitchen Kreation 8. 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 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. 4. 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." 5. 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 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. 6. 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

6 ITA No. 1412/Del/2025 Kitchen Kreation 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

7 ITA No. 1412/Del/2025 Kitchen Kreation 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 quased. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. 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 following the decision of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the unsigned assessment order is non-est and invalid, hence, the same is quashed.