PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL B.V,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(I.T) , CIR-2(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

The only issue pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is against the final invalid order passed by the ld. AO on 27.01.2023 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the same is unsigned.

The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the final assessment order as referred above though has not been signed by AO but the fact remains that all the procedures and formalities were completed before issue of order to the assessee. The ld. DR relied heavily on the order of authorities below.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹2,21,31,299/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and statutory notices along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is based in the Netherlands and does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee received payments from its group entities in India i.e. Philips India Limited and Preethi Kitchen towards rendition of certain support services in the field like Information Technology, marketing & distribution, commercial, accounting, auditing, financial, fiscal, human resources management, insurance, tax and legal services, which were offered to tax in India. In this case, the final assessment order was passed by the ld. AO u/s “6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order passed by the DRP and the assessment framed thereafter giving effect to the direction of DRP by the Assessing Officer. At the outset, we found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions given by the Id. DRP, is without signature of the concerned Assessing Officer, which itself is not maintainable as the same is nullity and invalid. Thisissue has already been decided by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal relied upon by the Id. AR of the assessee before us in the case of Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd (supra), wherein the Tribunal has mentioned that, "signing of an assessment order by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory requirement and not merely a procedural formality and it is not a curable procedural defect which can be fixed by signing of order after service of same on the assessee." The relevant observations of the Tribunal in this regard are as under: - 16. The Id. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e.the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The Id. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated to the assessee originated from the designated E-mail ID of the Assessing Officer, therefore, in terms of rule 127A, the said document shall be deemed to be authenticated. The said argument is desultory and not in unison with the provisions of section 282A of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 282A of the Act are reproduced herein below: "282A: Authentication of notices and other documents: (1) Where this Act requires a notice or other document to be issued by any income-tax authority, such notice or other document shall be signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. (2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by any income-tax authority, shall be deemed to be