SINGTEL GLOBAL (INDIA) PVT LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-22(2) , NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2001/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2026AY 2018-195 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the absence of a signature on the Final Assessment Order renders it non-est and invalid. The Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench decision in Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, which in turn cited Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd v. Dy. CIT, International Tax. The reasoning was that signing an assessment order is a mandatory requirement, not a procedural formality that can be cured subsequently. An unsigned order is considered incomplete and invalid from its inception. The Tribunal noted that Section 292B of the Act, which cures procedural defects, does not grant immunity from non-compliance with statutory provisions like the mandatory signing of an order. Therefore, the unsigned assessment order served on the assessee was quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Singtel Global (India) Pvt. Ltd., is challenging a Final Assessment Order dated 30/06/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's primary contention is that the assessment order is invalid and non-est because it lacks any manual or digital signature of the issuing authority. The revenue, represented by the ACIT, argued that the assessment order was passed in accordance with law and that the assessee's ground is hyper-technical. The Tribunal examined the assessment order produced by the assessee and confirmed the absence of a signature.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Final Assessment Order dated 30/06/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and non-est due to the absence of a signature, thereby requiring it to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The assessment order is unauthenticated and therefore invalid and non-est, violating statutory requirements and deserving to be set aside. The assessee relies on the decision in Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation and Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd v. Dy. CIT, International Tax. Revenue's Contention: The Final Assessment Order has been passed in accordance with law, and the assessee's ground regarding the signature is hyper-technical and deserves dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

Hearing: 07/05/2025Pronounced: 21/05/2026

1 ITA No. 2001/Del/2022 Singtel Global (India) Vs. ACIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘I’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2001/Del/2022 (Assessment Year 2018-19)

Singtel Global (India) Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.Flat No. 1307, 13th Income Tax, Circle-22(2), C. R. Floor, B Wing Statesman Building, I. P. Estates, House 148, Barakhamba New Delhi-110001 Road, New Delhi PAN: AALCS7526F Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Arun Bhadauria, adv Revenue by Sh. Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 21/05/2026 ORDER 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.

2.

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

2 ITA No. 2001/Del/2022 Singtel Global (India) Vs. ACIT

assessment order is unauthenticated, therefore, the same is in

violation and non-est and deserves to be set aside.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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

3 ITA No. 2001/Del/2022 Singtel Global (India) Vs. ACIT

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

4 ITA No. 2001/Del/2022 Singtel Global (India) Vs. ACIT

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.

6.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/-

(S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 21.05.2026 R. Naheed Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

5 ITA No. 2001/Del/2022 Singtel Global (India) Vs. ACIT

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →