Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta

219 ITR 214Supreme Court of India1996#9534 most cited

What is Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta authority for?

An assessment order is valid only if it is signed. An unsigned assessment order is a defect that affects the validity of the subsequent demand notice and recovery proceedings.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kilasho Devi Burman · Commissioner of Income Tax · signed assessment order · mandatory · curable defect · validity of assessment · demand notice · unsigned order · section 143(3) · section 282 · section 292B

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 144BSection 14A(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 148a(c)section 282a(1)section 282asection 69dsection 148(1)section 148(2)approval under section 151section 149(1)(b)non application of mindorder under section 148a(d)section 282section 292b

Judgments citing Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2309/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…s into force or becomes operative or becomes an effective order or decision on and from the date when it is signed by him….” (Emphasis Supplied). Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta(1996) 219 ITR 214 is also relied. Then reliance is placed on Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 205 ITD 31/ 228 TTJ 165/110 ITR 609 (Mum)(Trib), where in it was held that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krish…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 13, Delhi

ITA 2308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…s into force or becomes operative or becomes an effective order or decision on and from the date when it is signed by him….” (Emphasis Supplied). Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta(1996) 219 ITR 214 is also relied. Then reliance is placed on Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 205 ITD 31/ 228 TTJ 165/110 ITR 609 (Mum)(Trib), where in it was held that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krish…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

ITA 2306/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…s into force or becomes operative or becomes an effective order or decision on and from the date when it is signed by him….” (Emphasis Supplied). Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta(1996) 219 ITR 214 is also relied. Then reliance is placed on Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 205 ITD 31/ 228 TTJ 165/110 ITR 609 (Mum)(Trib), where in it was held that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krish…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2305/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…s into force or becomes operative or becomes an effective order or decision on and from the date when it is signed by him….” (Emphasis Supplied). Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta(1996) 219 ITR 214 is also relied. Then reliance is placed on Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 205 ITD 31/ 228 TTJ 165/110 ITR 609 (Mum)(Trib), where in it was held that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krish…

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…ment or shirk the responsibility of verifying and authenticating the correctness of the tax computations resulting in the demand raised against the assessee." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Kilasho Devi Burman vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (219 ITR 214) was seized with a situation where the Tribunal went into question as to whether there was an assessment on the H.U.F. for the Assessment year 1955-56 and interalia concluded (i) there was no signed assessment order. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the findings of the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- 13 "12.The High Court based i…

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., Delhi

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…ment or shirk the responsibility of verifying and authenticating the correctness of the tax computations resulting in the demand raised against the assessee." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Kilasho Devi Burman vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (219 ITR 214) was seized with a situation where the Tribunal went into question as to whether there was an assessment on the H.U.F. for the Assessment year 1955-56 and interalia concluded (i) there was no signed assessment order. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the findings of the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- "12.The High Court based itse…

Kandathil Jewellers, Kerala vs. DCIT, Circle Ingtl. Txan, Kerala

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 874/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

…see, as projected by Shri Jyothison, is that the assessment order has not been signed, either physically or digitally, by the AO. Authentication of a document being a necessary condition for its validity, even as explained in Kilasho Devi Burman v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 214 (SC), the assessment record, called for,was examined to find a physically signed copy of the assessment order by one, Deeptha M.S., Dy. CIT, International Taxation Circle, Thiruvananhapuram, the extant AO. As explained through her written submissions dated 16.11.2023 by Smt. Devi, also enclosing along with a copy of a letter of even date by the i…

Kandathil Jewellers, Kerala vs. DCIT, Circle Ingtl. Txan, Kerala

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 873/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

…see, as projected by Shri Jyothison, is that the assessment order has not been signed, either physically or digitally, by the AO. Authentication of a document being a necessary condition for its validity, even as explained in Kilasho Devi Burman v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 214 (SC), the assessment record, called for,was examined to find a physically signed copy of the assessment order by one, Deeptha M.S., Dy. CIT, International Taxation Circle, Thiruvananhapuram, the extant AO. As explained through her written submissions dated 16.11.2023 by Smt. Devi, also enclosing along with a copy of a letter of even date by the i…

Kandathil Jewellers, Kerala vs. DCIT International Taxation Circle, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 872/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

…see, as projected by Shri Jyothison, is that the assessment order has not been signed, either physically or digitally, by the AO. Authentication of a document being a necessary condition for its validity, even as explained in Kilasho Devi Burman v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 214 (SC), the assessment record, called for,was examined to find a physically signed copy of the assessment order by one, Deeptha M.S., Dy. CIT, International Taxation Circle, Thiruvananhapuram, the extant AO. As explained through her written submissions dated 16.11.2023 by Smt. Devi, also enclosing along with a copy of a letter of even date by the i…

Jayshree Vinit Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD- 24 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147BSection 250Section 68Section 69

…assessment order, the demand notice, and the tax computation sheet. The learned AR further, submitted that the learned CIT(A) has not considered judicial precedents cited by the assessee and relied on the decision of Smt. Kilasodevi Burman and others Vs. CIT 219 ITR 214 (SC), CIT Vs. Dhansukhlal J. Gajjar 237 ITR 534 (Guj) and the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Vijay Corporation Vs. ITO (ITA No.1511/MUM/2010) order dated 20.01.2012, ITO Vs. Parkeen Brothers 45 CCH 498 (Mum. Trib) wherein, it was held that an unsigned assessment order is held to be invalid assessment. The learned Departmental Represent…

ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Parkeen Brothers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3047/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito 12(3)(4) Parkeen Brothers, R.No.123, 24 Nagindas Master Rd, बनाम/ Ist Floor, Aayakar Exten Fort, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd. Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai -400020 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aadfp8294A Revenue By Shri Arvind Kumar (Dr) Respondent By Shri Satish Modi (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 274Section 292Section 292B

…hat none of these documents has been signed by the AO. It is noted that Hon’ble Coordinate bench in the case of Vijay Corporation (supra) has rightly held that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. 13 Kailasho Devi Burman & others vs. CIT 219 ITR 214 (SC) squarely covered the issue in favour of the assessee. We find that in the case of Vijay Corporation at least demand notice was signed, even then it was held by the Hon’ble Bench that unsigned assessment order was invalid in the eyes of law. It is further noted by us that in the case before us none of the aforesaid documents have been signed…

Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta (219 ITR 214) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax