Remarks or rider besides digital signature on orders and notices- can invalidate them if remarks suggest that the document is not signed and it amount to unsigned document .

Remarks  or rider besides digital signature on orders and notices-   can invalidate them  if remarks suggest that the document is not signed  and it amount to unsigned document .

Remarks besides digital signature:

In practice we find different type of remarks about digital signature. Such remarks may appear near, above or below the digital signature or elsewhere in the document. Example of some remarks seen on orders and notices are  as follows:

'signature invalid'

“Signature not verified”

“validity unknown”

 “Document was verified validity is not known”

The above list is illustrative and learned readers are requested to give geed back in this regard.

Any notice or order  served on assessee must bear signature of authority:

When the law require that notice or order must be signed then assessee must get a properly signed notice or order. It cannot be a copy of order.

In fact the signature must tally with specimen signature on record of concerned officer. A short signature or signature in materially different style can also create doubt about reliability of signature. Therefore, officers must prefer to have signatures in style and content that it cannot be easily copied or forged.

Copy of order - In case, it is so allowed and a copy is issued then it must be stated to be a copy of order and must indicate  ‘signed by concerned officer’  with relevant description and details.  If copy of order is issued then it is generally stated to be a copy on it and is signed by administrative officer like PS or Officer in charge.

In case of some courts, copy of orders are issued ( original is kept in office folder)  and concerned persons can apply and obtain certified copy of order.

CPC  Communication, orders,intimation must be signed:

CPC (Central Processing Unit) is acting on behalf of department and its communication and orders are equal to  and have value as that of concerned jurisdictional tax officer.

CPC intimation determing  tax payable is also considered a demand notice.

Therefore intimation issued by CPC must bear signature of concerned officer.

Case decided by ITAT, Kolkata Bench:

Welfare Building & Estates Private Limited Versus DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru - 2026 (2) TMI 599 - ITAT KOLKATA.

In this case assessee was appellant because CPC has made certain additions in  order u.s. 154 /intimation u.s. 143.1.a which amounted to double addition because assessee has itself made impugned additions in ITR filed by it. However, addition was made by CPC and confirmed by CIT(A) may be due to lack of proper communication and documentation. Therefore, assessee preferred appeal before ITAT.

Before the Tribunal,assess submitted  about wrong full addition confirmed by CIT(A). And the Learned Authorised Representative also pointed out that the order passed is not signed.

In this regard Tribunal first considered about unsigned order. And noted as follows:

“ 2. 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:

 For the  photo please see  in reported judgment.

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, 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.

Unquote:

Thus based on document available it was found that order is unsigned because besides digital signature it is mentioned “Signature invalid”.

Therefore, Tribunal quashed the order.

Further observations of Tribunal:

As noted  in the order, Tribunal has in a way given another opportunity to revenue to show a valid signature, if it is available elsewhere, then Revenue may move an appropriate order (sic.  application) for rectification in this matter.

Author feels that signature elsewhere will not mean that the order served  has been duly signed. The order served upon the assessee must have a valid signature because requirement is and it is purported to be signed order that has been served and it is found by Tribunal that it is not signed.

In the given circumstances,  learned Departmental Representative could have preferable asked for more time to make further submissions to show relevant aspects- signed elsewhere or to show that the digital signature is placed on the order is valid.

Author feel that once honourable Tribunal has passed an order and given a finding that the order is not signed, then there should not be a rethought and order a fresh  by the Tribunal

Learned Readers are requested to share their experience through feed back on article.