Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by an order passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, which added Rs. 1,48,83,791/- alleging double addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee also contended that the AO's order was not properly signed, making it invalid.
Held
The Tribunal held that the order under section 154 was not signed, and therefore, it lacked legal validity. Consequently, the AO's order was quashed on this ground.
Key Issues
Whether an order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act is legally valid if it is not properly signed by the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
154, 250, 43B, 36(i)(va)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH”, KOLKATA
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : A.N. Keshari, FCA Department represented by : Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 24.07.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
1.1 In this case, the first issue is that the assessee is aggrieved with an order passed u/s 154 of the Act by the Ld. AO-CPC through which an addition of Rs. 1,48,83,791/- has been made u/s 43B and 36(i)(va) of the Act. The assessee has all along claimed that this is a double addition which has been wrongly made. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the basis of findings given in para 4.4 of the impugned order.
Welfare Building & Estate Pvt. Ltd. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has filed the present appeal with grounds challenging the adjustments made by the AO-CPC. The Ld. AR also pointed out that the Ld. AO’s order is not properly signed and hence that order itself is invalid. The Ld. AR stated that the action of Ld. AO has resulted in double addition and the assessee’s averments have not been considered.
1.2 The Ld. DR pointed out that there were shortcomings in terms of documentation regarding the adjustments made. The Ld. DR pointed out that the Ld. AO’s order is digitally signed and hence it cannot be said that the order is unsigned. The Ld. DR relied on the impugned order thereafter.
We have carefully considered the documents before us and heard both the Ld. AR/DR. There appeals to be considerable merit in the averment that the order u/s 154 of the Act is not signed. For this purpose, the only page where there is any signature visible deserves to be extracted:
2.1 It is seen that on the bottom, right side of the copy of document pasted above reveals that there is a mention: “Signature invalid”, and it is written N Sayiraj, IRS, DDIT, CPC-Bengaluru. It is obvious that the Ld. AO’s order is not signed and legally an unsigned order has no validity in the eyes of law. Thus, on this ground itself, the Ld. AO’s order is quashed. However, Welfare Building & Estate Pvt. Ltd. we have considered the fact of signature or otherwise purely on the basis of records before us, however, in case a valid signature is available elsewhere then the Revenue may move an appropriate order for rectification in this matter.
In result, with the discussion above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 24.07.2025